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 32 of 38.
“Ireland is committed to it and has signed up to it. The compliance committee of the Aarhus Convention has previously clearly found that section 42 of the 2000 Act was not compliant with the Aarhus Convention in failing to consider the obligation of public participation requirements when updating or revisiting a consent. This is required under Article 6.10 of that convention. The amendments to section 16 will compound those issues because they are going to extend again the context in which this flawed section will be relied on. Again, this was highlighted when the 2024 planning Bill was coming through. I heard it multiple times in the Chamber. It is a pity to now again read the text that came from that. Clearly the Aarhus Convention has said that section 42 of the 2000 Act was found to be non-compliant.”
“The key point here is what it leans on, what it is extending, which is section 42 of the 2000 Act, was found to be non-compliant with the Aarhus Convention. Again, this is not about the question of extensions but of how it is being done and the fact that it is being done without giving any rights to public participation or input or any reflection on how situations may have changed. Even environmental factors may have changed over what can, in some cases, be a very long period of time. Section 42 the 2000 Act was reviewed by the compliance committee of the Aarhus Convention. To be clear, the Aarhus Convention is not an aspirational document or something that we have signed up to in a general sense as a goal for the State. The Aarhus Convention is legislation. It is law and it is legally binding.”
“I have a number of key concerns on the Bill and the context in which they sit. I feel there is also an element of us having been here before in the shocking announcement that was just made of the intention to add last-minute major and substantial amendments, changes in our planning laws put in at the very last minute just before a recess, and to ram it through without proper democratic oversight. This is a pattern that was exhibited by the previous Government, particularly in the area of planning. I will go through and highlight some of the specific issues in this Bill. Section 16 amends section 42 of the 2000 Act. This is entirely in violation of our obligations under the Aarhus Convention. This section allows for the extension of permission for uncommenced developments of one or more houses.”
“Students are incredibly burdened by the cost of undertaking education. The Minister, Deputy Browne, said there would be no exemptions or supports from the reforms in rental pressure zones. Landlords will be able to raise rents as they see fit for all new tenancies. PhD students, who are carrying out some of the most important research here in Ireland, are often receiving just €22,000 per annum or €1,830 per month to survive and live on. I appeal that we have, even at this late stage, a debate on this before we rise for the recess. The idea of layering an extra €1,000 a year on students who are already struggling means we will have students losing out and we will lose out on the diversity of those taking part in higher education, and that has a knock-on effect for society which is deeply negative.”
“The cost and the knock-on effect of the gap that has been identified in terms of higher education funding has come to press those who are working in the institutions through the insecurity of their contracts but also, crucially, the impact is being felt by students. Bearing in mind we are meant to have free higher education in Ireland which was the goal many years ago and the breakthrough, the idea is that taking fees from €3,000 to €2,000 was made as a cost-of-living measure and that it would now be removed when we know the cost of living has not gone down at all, particularly not for students in terms of accommodation. Research from NUI Galway found student accommodation costs in Ireland and Dublin are among the highest in the European Union. The general cost of living for Ireland is also one of the highest costs in the European Union.”
“These are students from Palestine who hope to start in September and who are still waiting for their visas and to make transport arrangements, and, of course, it relates to the planned GAA tour. I am genuinely hoping these will be addressed. I really urge Government members to press the Minister so that we would not have a rolling series of heartbreaks over the summer but actual humanity shown to the extremely small numbers who have managed to find a possible way to travel and to live normal lives in these horrendous times. I want to quickly speak to the cost of fees and the changes relating to them. We know Ireland massively underspends on higher education. We are at 3.2%. The European average is 4.5% with many countries well over that.”
“To add a comment to the other topics, in relation to the electricity connections, we need to talk a little bit about data centres given the rolling cuts we all saw yesterday and the fact we have had a massive escalation in energy and electricity demand from it, over 200% of an increase. It is an elephant in the room and it needs to be addressed. Even in Portlaoise, where there is apparently a difficulty in connecting houses, there are new data centres going in there. We have to be honest, that if we bring in something that is using 21% and might use 30% of our electricity, that is having an impact on our electricity security and needs serious, genuine thought and action. Regarding visas, I hope we can have a compassionate approach over the summer. We are seeing too many situations in relation to medical visas and student visas for travel.”
“It becomes an underlying thing, rather something society acknowledges happening to women and recognises the need for them to be supported through and given the kind of deeply caring and deeply thoughtful legislative, policy and compassionate supports as set out in this Bill. This is why I really think we should be progressing the legislation. This is the caring and correct thing to do. If the Government wishes to outflank the Bill, because it has much faster ways of moving legislation, so be it. The best way to show it is taking the issue seriously now, though, is by letting this legislation progress and letting us bring it onto Committee Stage to further tease out each individual section of this excellent Bill. This is the thing that will send a powerful signal to the women of Ireland and their families.”
“For many, too, the loss may be following a journey of years for persons who have undergone IVF and been undertaking a whole journey to try to have children. For some people, this is really coming as part of an intense, long, emotional journey they have taken to get to the point of being pregnant and to move it forward. The hormonal impact is an extraordinary thing even in itself, apart from anything else. It is cruel to suggest that people would have to step into work and cover it over. We know this has happened for years and years. How many books and stories have we read, when late on, perhaps after years of suffering and knock-on effects in terms of other relationships and inter-family relationships, it is revealed that somebody had a miscarriage?”
“People experience it in different ways. This is why, again, this is good nuance in this Bill. The register, for example, is an opt-in one that people can approach in the way that is right for them. I know people who have experienced this loss in different ways, so there is this opt-in component. The legislation does effectively centre the woman affected and their partner. It is also very good in recognising the question of kinship care and others, where somebody else needs to step in where a parent may actually be lost. When we look to this Bill, it is really important for those affected that it is not simply concerned with whether the loss comes at nine weeks, 12 weeks or 20 weeks. An extraordinary journey can be taken in those nine, ten, 12 or 20 weeks.”
“We need to get back to that kind of constructive co-operation. I am worried about the direction of travel in this Government, where everything is delayed. It seems a case of, "Thank you for your idea; we will think about later, but we are going to stop you in the moment." This sends an unnecessary signal of pausing and stopping those trying to progress these issues. Turning to the substance of the Bill, I think it is crucial this is properly addressed. The physical and emotional impact on people has been talked about. It is very important to be clear that this Bill is centred on the pregnant woman and their partner. People experience this loss in different ways. For some people, it is the loss of a life, while for others, it is the loss of a pregnancy and the loss of potential and possibility and a way of thinking of the future.”
“Many employees, many pregnant women, are in that position. As I said, this is a very well drafted Bill. Frankly, when good legislation comes through, and comes through from the Opposition, the right thing to do is to let it progress. It does not become law as soon as it leaves Second Stage and goes on to Committee Stage. Rather, this facilitates constructive debate. It may well be the case that the legislation might be incorporated into Government legislation, but this is what we have done in the past. We did with legislation from former Senator Bacik and with my colleague, Senator Ruane, and here NDA Bill. Those Bills did end up being incorporated in Government legislation down the line, but what happened was that they were teased out really well by engaging in good faith with the Opposition and the proposals put forward.”
“It looks at the vital importance of discretion and people being able to seek this leave and being given the proper privacy in respect of when they wish to seek it from their employers. Crucially, it looks at the protection of employment rights. Sadly, not every employer is compassionate, although many are. The legislation considers the protection of employment rights for persons in terms of this situation and examines creating that space. It is not just about the people who want that space. Sometimes, when people have to take their place in work, especially in respect of the way they often are having to take it now, but simply cannot go to work at a certain time, they are having to seek sick leave or annual leave, which may or may not be granted. People in this situation are in a position of vulnerability.”
“I join others in commending a very good and necessary Bill, as has been said. It is very good and well drafted legislation, with real nuance and sensitivity in how it approaches the issues, and goes through the kinds of policy points highlighted by groups and academics and addresses every concern section by section and line by line. I know it may seem kind of cold to go to the quality of the legislation, but I think this is really important because it should not be delayed. This is one of the really well-drafted Bills I have seen. It goes through and looks at all the things that matter. It looks at the question of duration by setting an incredibly modest baseline, but with scope for greater leave in terms of five days.”
“Let us pull back and consider them all with regard to an Article 4 accession or non-agreement or non-opt in. Clearly, these are logics that need interrogation in Ireland, which, as one of the only countries in Europe with a colonial history of being colonised, should have a particular attention to these consequences.”
“I would call it nonsense, but it is too severe and serious in its consequence. This is the El Salvador piece or the Rwanda piece whereby Europe can designate a country and state that, even if these people have nothing to do with or no connection to this country, because Europe has a deal with that country, we will send them there. It is an outsourcing, not of the vindication of human rights, but it is a derogation and an abdication of our duty around human rights and international law, and it is a displacement and outsourcing that will, in effect f effectively sending people to situations where their rights cannot be vindicated. That is what was in the third proposal, which has been pulled back, and that is a deeply colonial logic. Let us have a deeper consideration of all the proposals, given that this was part of the picture.”
“Let us look at the record of those in terms of the immigration control deals Europe has put in place in the past to keep people from even reaching European borders. Consider the immigration control deal we had with Libya, where the most horrendous human rights abuses have been documented, or the immigration control deal we struck with Sudan that contributed to the arming of what became actors in the war that is ongoing there currently. Those are some of the ways the EU has struck deals in its 11 immigration control deals. There was the insertion of borders between countries that did not have borders between them previously because they are to serve EU interests. That is the record of the kinds of deals Europe has struck with regard to European immigration control.”
“Let us be clear, however; I do not believe we should join it at all. Let us look at what was in that proposal that has been withdrawn, which comes from the same kind of logic in terms of safe countries. It comes from the same kind of perspective, which is a neocolonial perspective and a colonial perspective in terms of determining or arbitrating the lives of others. The change would mean that rather than having to have a connection to the country a person might be deported to, it would say the concept of a country of return would include, among other things, habitual residence, first country of asylum, third country where the individual has a right to enter and reside and, crucially, third countries where there is an agreement or arrangement concluded bilaterally or at EU level. Therefore, it is a country that the EU strikes a deal with.”
“As has been said, the fact that it has been removed reflects the concerns that are there because the same logics are underpinning the withdrawn third proposal, which I think the Minister said we will consider if we join it under Article 3 or Article 4.”
“Is it simply that we are talking of our capacity for housing and these kinds of issues are being put in? These are failures in the provision for persons in terms of conditions of living well in Ireland. It is very hard to see how the balance of risk to an individual is balanced here with the public interest. Within the proposal before us, the construct of non-entry could allow for indefinite detention at borders. UN experts have stated that detaining migrant children is never in the best interests of the child, is always in violation of children's rights, and, I would say again, is not in the public interest. The second proposal relates to the application of the safe third country. The third proposal has been removed. My time is running out, so I am actually going to focus on the proposal that has been removed because it is key.”
“The Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU states, "Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected." The proposal before us do not guarantee that. There has been some spectacle around the issue of deportation flights. Many people were disturbed to see five children deported from the country last month. A principal at the school two of the children attended outlined how their mother was waiting on a scheduled immigration appointment at the time of the deportation. The children were on the football team and had participated in the GAA for two years. They had friends. They were well integrated in the community. The school advocated for them to be able to stay. These are questions regarding protections. How does this serve the public interest?”
“I recall situations where cut-and-paste decisions were being made where the gender of the person was wrong. There were so clearly cut-and-paste decisions historically in Ireland where people had to have that corrected on appeal, for example. These mistakes often have life and death consequences for individuals. The legal supports are inadequate and many may go through the system without even meeting a lawyer. We need a properly resourced asylum system that gives safe and legal routes for asylum seekers and refugees. There is only one organisation in Ireland that can assess torture victims, and it has a six- to 12-month waiting list. That is the kind of area where considerable focus and resources should be placed on ensuring the dignity of the applicants and their personal safety assessment. Human dignity is a fundamental European value.”
“It is a standardised mechanism or an algorithm for making a decision rather than being a safety assessment, which is what should be required, with regard to the individual asylum applicants and their potential safety. Again, it can lead to blanket discrimination by country of origin rather than individuals accessing their rights and having their rights vindicated. In terms of the well-documented human rights violations in some of the EU-designated safe countries, applications from these countries will be fast-tracked. The fast-tracking of these in these circumstances will undermine the human rights of the applicant. Speeding up these processes without adequate resources can lead to mistakes. We had situations in the past of extraordinarily poor decisions being made in the first round that needed to be reversed on appeal.”
“However, several of the countries that will be deemed safe by the EU regulations have well-documented human rights violations, including violent repression of political opposition, imprisonment of journalists, widespread gender-based violence and, as has been highlighted, violence and penalties against those who are LGBT simply for their existence. These are also incredibly dangerous place for human rights defenders. Italian courts, for example, have ruled that some of the countries the EU designates as safe are not, in fact, safe. There is a serious concern around how these EU regulations will work in practice. For example, one criterion for a county to be deemed safe is that the EU-wide recognition rate is below 20%. This is a blunt tool.”
“Let us talk about the burden of poverty, conflict and environmental devastation that is being placed on people around the world. I turn to my specific concerns on the proposals before us. Asylum processes need to be fair and functioning, but that cannot come at the expense of human rights. At the heart of every application is a human being, a person or sometimes a family, whose rights must be respected as they make a claim for asylum in Ireland. The motions raise concerns about the human rights of those individuals and families. The first proposal regards opting in to the asylum procedures regulation, which provides that the EU can designate safe countries. It states a country can only be designated safe if it is shown there is no persecution, as defined by EU regulation.”
“That is something Europe needs to reflect on, as one of the great arms-producing areas of the world and a part of the world that is, it seems, deeply committed to escalating militarisation internationally. That is alongside our greater contribution to climate change, which is one of the greatest and most desperate drivers of people moving. We need only look to the micro context of Gaza to see that people move for hunger. The extreme famine conditions we saw recently in the Horn of Africa and elsewhere have been exacerbated by climate and by the failure of western countries, including European countries, to step up to their responsibilities. We have to consider that context, rather than employing tunnel-vision language around the burden of migration within Europe and how to deal with it.”
“I share the concern many have expressed about the proposals before us. I echo what we have heard across the House about recognising migration as something that has happened for centuries and millennia and something that is often a net positive for countries. Ireland, with its history of migration in different economic and political circumstances, circumstances of conflict and so on, as well as its record of contribution globally, should have a particular understanding of migration. Part of the context around migration is that right now we have the highest levels ever recorded of displaced and internally displaced people worldwide. The drivers for much of this increased migration are conflicts, our increasingly militarised world and our increasing focus on conflict.”
“It shows the State is listening, that it is looking at the lives of the people affected and asking what will really help them, not just what is an already existing bar in our charts so that we can add them in to the standardised medical card, and that we have created something that will actually acknowledge that people have had usual and bad experiences at the hands of the State. It is a pity. The Minister is leaning back to us doing the standard practice rather than the good practice. That is an opportunity missed, not just in terms of this scheme but also in terms of trying to set the bar for better practice moving forward in all of the other ways we have talked about. I think it is really regrettable, so I will press the amendment.”
“This is a rare instance where we have an example of something that could be best practice, that maybe could be an example for other countries and other places which are dealing with the litany of residential and non-residential institutional abuse. We have something which Ireland wrote: here is an enhanced card. We have gone to the trouble of looking into the details and figuring out how we can really support you, and not just in terms of a standard medical card because we recognise that yours is not a standard situation, that you have had particular experiences. What I am hearing from the Minister is, we are going with what we did before in terms of the mother and baby homes and the Magdalen laundries. In each of those there have been calls for something like the enhanced medical card. It is something that people said is good.”
“One of the moments when a good choice was made was the decision for some to get access to that enhanced medical card. I do not know why we would not extend that. We know that was welcomed and was seen a recognition of the reality of people's physical situations, their mental situations and the challenges they were facing in their lives. Why not extend it? Why not look to bringing the HAA card to wider grouping given, I would say, the comparatively low cost but the very significant difference to the lives of many people affected and, indeed, the signal it would send when something that survivors themselves have called for was granted?”
“The State has a responsibility to survivors. The medical card provided for in the Bill has been clearly described as inadequate by survivors and their families. It should not be acceptable that people who were treated grossly in their earlier life are impoverished and continue to suffer in their later life because of the cost of meeting their healthcare needs. In many cases, the origins of their health issues are very much known. Every time we raise the issue of access to the HAA card, we are told it was done for one scheme and is not standard practice for other schemes. There is a reason access to the card is continually referenced. We have highlighted some of the very poor choices that were made in regard to redress across multiple different schemes.”
“This amendment seeks to oblige the Minister to prepare a report on access for survivors to the card provided for under the Health (Amendment) Act 1996, known as the HAA card. This issue was raised throughout the Committee Stage debate and is one of the key requests that have been consistently made by survivors. Even in the week since that debate, people have contacted our office outlining the shortcomings of the provision in the Bill for a medical card to meet the health needs of survivors. In the absence of adequate support from the State, it falls to the families of survivors, if they have families, to provide care. In many cases, survivors have to seek private medical interventions, where they or their family can afford to do so, to address health issues that are deeply rooted in their abusive experiences within institutions.”
“I move amendment No. 7: In page 9, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: "Report on access to Health (Amendment) Act Card 8. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas detailing how the Health (Amendment) Act Card can be provided to all persons who were, for any period, resident in an institution specified in the Schedule to the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002.".”
“I move amendment No. 26: In page 9, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “Report on adequacy on best practice in supports to survivors of residential institutional abuse 7. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on best practice in supports to survivors of residential institutional abuse examining concerns including: (a) the adequacy of healthcare, educational and financial supports; (b) the use of waivers; (c) the application of restrictions to survivors’ qualification for redress; (d) the comparative adequacy of other redress supports, and (e) make recommendations for best practice going forward, including the establishment of a special advocate.”.”
“I wish to add a single sentence. Briefly on the rights issue, I want to signal that I may include on Report Stage a version of the right to information. This relates to sections 18 and 19 of the Bill. We may not reach them if this debate is guillotined, but I want to signal the importance of ensuring subject access requests for data. There are very narrow purposes for which the information will be transferred to the Minister and used. They need to include people's rights around their information in the context of subject access requests, being able to build cases themselves or unrelated issues in terms of what they have experienced, including what they have experienced in their engagement with the redress scheme. I just wanted to signal that I might come back on those two areas through a revised version of this proposal on Report Stage.”
“Maybe it is because they cannot talk or we hope they will not remember. That was an arbitrary drawing of a line. When we ask the Minister for a review, we are asking in good conscience for her to really think about how waivers have been used. Reference was made to only those in the system already. The Minister should be looking at who did not benefit from these schemes or who did apply to them because they did not want to sign a waiver, were intimidated out of applying or came across a hostile first point of contact within the scheme. That is what I mean by "learning". From the Minister's response, I am less confident now that the State is willing to start learning on these issues.”
“That is why the question about waivers is: why do that and then take away with the other hand their legal rights, rights that anybody else would have with regard to civil liability or other areas? The Minister has just said that the Government intends to continue with that policy. I believe that policy needs to be reviewed. I urge the Minister to reflect on it and the logic of it. Then there is this thing of there having to be criteria. There have to be, but this amendment is about applying, examining and considering best practice. Is it best practice to have criteria that are based on how we can minimise the cost? That was the logic of excluding those who spent six months in an institution, the mothers who gave birth there, and the children whose first few months of their lives took place in a situation of misery and abuse.”
“I am a little disappointed by the Minister's response about the use of waivers. We need to be clear. When we hear about redress schemes, they are usually accompanied by apologies and sincere expressions of how sorry we are as a State. The Minister then says these are there to replace legal action. Are these redress schemes about recognising we have done wrong as a State, and that we owe something to people for having done some things wrong, or are they to protect the State against actions and against individual cases being taken? The Minister said that the redress schemes are a substitute for legal action and so forth. I thought the purpose of redress schemes was to try to make up, in some small, inadequate way, to those who have been wronged and to give something back to them.”
“Where is the evidence that the State is not just sorry for this individual situation, for bad practice and for yet another area of failed oversight where we outsourced our responsibilities to persons who behaved in an abusive way but is also learning and driving its way towards actual best practice and doing better than the redress schemes we have to date? In this report, we are asking the Minister to point an arrow to the future and say we will learn and review, as Senator Boyhan said, and address these issues further.”
“On the use of waivers, it is an incredible indignity and wrong to require those who are receiving redress because they have been the victims of abuse to waive their rights in order to access that redress. This appalling practice, which has been used again and again, goes against everything we know about restorative justice. I am looking for some learning on all of these issues. The last element in our report relates to recommendations for best practice going forward, including the establishment of a special advocate, for which a case has been strongly made. We can talk about sums of €3,000 and €50,000 and where they will go.”
“These survivors were explicitly excluded because somehow we drew an arbitrary line to say someone's experience of giving birth in a situation that was abusive or a person's experience of spending the first six months of their life in a residential institution, in this case, a mother and baby home, is somehow not relevant. It was not necessary to draw a line or to exclude those persons who had experienced that residential abuse. The adequacy of healthcare, educational and financial supports is a concern. The application of restrictions on survivors' qualification for redress is also a concern. To make a comparison of the adequacy of redress supports, some people who have applied seem to have been treated well while others who applied have been treated very poorly. Different schemes have changed.”
“Our amendment would have a report done that looks to an assessment of the adequacy of those healthcare, educational and financial supports, not how much is left in the pot but what is adequate for the needs of those affected. It would also examine the issue of the restriction to survivors' qualification for redress. We spoke of this in relation to the appalling and arbitrary restriction of access to redress for survivors of mother and baby homes who had spent the vital first six months of their lives in institutions and women who had been in them for their birth. In many cases, we know these births were deeply traumatic.”
“The Bill restricts supports only to survivors and does not address the issues of intergenerational loss of opportunity and the intergenerational trauma and damage that has been done when a parent has suffered from residential institutional abuse, for example. The Bill provides that the Minister may make an individual assessment of each application in terms of education. There is a litany of concerns. The Bill is also restricted to those who have already received awards under the Residential Institutions Redress Act, which includes survivors, many of whom are in their 70s and 80s. We know those are the people the State should never turn its back on, namely, those who have not had opportunities or the capacity, for different reasons, to engage with redress schemes up to this point.”
“The Minister indicated this card was provided to only one group under the hepatitis C scheme and she did not want to create a hierarchy of supports between survivors of abuse in the Magdalen laundries and the mother and baby homes and residential institutions. I agree. The clear benefits of the HAA card should be made available to all survivors. The education committee has made clear that access to education is critical to address the long-term intergenerational effects of residential institutional abuse. It suggests the legislation should make express provision for educational supports for survivors and their families, including a non-means tested bursary with individual cash grants.”
“Campaigners have highlighted the issue around financial supports and the need to link them to the cost of living; the need for additional payments and supports for survivors who have complex health needs; and the need for specific pension entitlements for survivors aged over 65 years because of the years of unpaid labour, the lack of education and the subsequent lack of opportunity which is reflected in poverty in their pension years. They have highlighted the physical and psychological impact of the abuse and the impact that has on a lifetime's earnings. This is also absent from the Bill. In terms of medical supports, there have been calls for access to the HAA medical card.”
“When the Bill was introduced to the House last year, survivor Tom Cronin stated that "the Government is using this Bill to masquerade the fact that it has ignored the views of survivors ... the Government has repeatedly consulted survivors and then ignored them." Their lived experience needs to be crucial to the supports and the question of the adequacy or appropriateness of the supports. Campaigners have described the €3,000 one-off payment for former residents living abroad as deeply insufficient. I will not go into this again because Senator Boyhan has been very articulate in expressing the needs of survivors who are living abroad or have been forced to travel abroad.”
“Too much of the time we have heard stories whereby it has been, in some cases, re-tramautising to access redress from the State rather than the healing process that it should be. We have identified a few areas where learning and reflection are needed. I ask the Minister to commit to producing a report that says the State will start learning from these things, so that we are not just dissolving, moving to the next bit and listening to the small issues of each particular project. We say again that a report on the adequacy and best practice around survivors of residential institutional abuse is needed and, first, the adequacy of the healthcare, educational and financial supports.”
“We had all these schemes, projects and initiatives and there seems to be a lack of learning. The State has repeatedly failed or been complicit, or even intentional, in terms of the abuse that people have experienced in institutions and similar mistakes are made again and again with the redress schemes. It is my opinion that they are mistakes and I call for an examination and genuine interrogation of what best practice actually looks like and what we should have done differently. The Minister has heard from people about the fact that engagement with redress bodies in itself has often been a gruelling, abusive and upsetting experience for survivors of institutional abuse.”
“I support Senator Boyhan in terms of a review. The Minister said that she has to put a figure in the Bill but there is absolutely nothing to stop her including a review mechanism in the Bill. I believe it would be appropriate that there would be a clear mechanism to review the sum of €3,000, which is clearly and, potentially, going to be very inadequate. My amendment No. 26 touches on this and a number of other issues. As we start another chapter with the dissolution of one body and creation of another, one thing that has frustrated some of us - this legislation focuses on residential institutional abuse - is that there have been many iterations of institutional abuse in different forms, including institutional abuse in respect of schools, hospitals in terms of symphysiotomy, mother and baby homes, and Magdalen laundries.”
“For clarity, the quarterly rent index shows there has been an increase of more than 10% for existing tenancies in Galway in the last quarter of 2024 and that Limerick city saw an increase of over 20% over the past two years. These are rental pressure zones already. Where is the enforcement if existing tenancies that are meant to be protected by the RPZs are seeing hikes of 10% and 20%? Enforcement will be crucial. There is no balancing piece. The duty of the State is to protect its citizens in their right to housing. That is the priority. Commercial interests will be very good at looking after their own interests. However, the interests of the public and the State are actually where our responsibility lies. That needs to be paramount in the next set of legislation.”