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 38 of 38.
“The situation showed, however, that we have been underinvesting in the storage component of renewable energy and the associated policies. I will highlight four aspects. There are solar panels that are unable to access their own energy because their systems are not configured to work off grid. If people have solar panels, they should be able to access that energy and it should be able to work as a reserve. The home battery grants were removed. We can talk about backup generators, but grants for people to have batteries at home were removed. People talked about peat fires and everything else, but a dialysis or CPAP machine cannot be run off those whereas it can be run off a home battery.”
“When we chop down trees indiscriminately, such as every tree greater than 6 or 8 ft tall, we increase the risk of flooding because trees are vital in the context of storms as they absorb moisture and prevent flooding. Poor and indiscriminate cutting is a recipe for increased flooding and for higher windspeeds and greater damage. The right trees, and the trees we have if properly protected and increased, are one of the things that are going to make us more resilient in the storms ahead. I have spoken excessively on forestry when I had many other things I wanted to talk about, but I will focus briefly on some of the other areas we need to look at. We must look at strengthening our renewable energy. We had much complaining about renewable energy in the storm’s aftermath and suggestions we need more and more solid fuels.”
“I am grateful we have not had too much in this Chamber of the frankly unhelpful discussion we saw in the other House about cutting every tree near a road. This is in a country where we have cut the trees in the middle. We have one of the lowest levels of forestry cover in Europe and in many cases we only have the trees by the roadways, along with our hedgerows. We have to use our hedgerows to try to maintain our biodiversity targets because we have cut everything else. It is about the right tree in the right place. Sitka spruce is not the right tree and they are not in the right place. It is about moving beyond just the roadside when it comes to where we are allowed plant trees in a meaningful way.”
“People have talked about continuous cover forestry as one of the ways we can address this, and I agree. We must also recognise that what our forests are going to be doing for us is actual carbon storage, which does not mean 20 years in a tree before that is cut down. It is a fact that forestry is a net emitter in Ireland right now. Instead, it is about planting in ways that are resilient. A previous catastrophe we had befell Killarney. We saw huge wildfires there a few years ago and native trees proved more resilient in areas where there were original stands of oak and other species. Scientifically, we know a mix of trees species and indigenous trees are more resilient to extreme weather events, be that fire or the storm we had. That is the kind of conversation we need to have about forestry.”
“We can still have an economic business in terms of forestry, but each economic choice would be checked against what its impact would be environmentally, whether it is sustainable, whether the trees are going to stay standing and what the social impact is going to be if we are planting poorly advised plantations of monoculture that cannot withstand extreme events as extreme events increase in communities across Ireland. There are some very real reasons behind this. Sitka spruce plantations are often particularly vulnerable as they are often planted in shallow, peaty soil, the trees have root plates that are broad and shallow and they grow tall and slender. They are very weak and vulnerable to high winds. They are not suitable for planting at the scale we have done.”
“It is just about whether Coillte can make cash and can it make it quickly. My Bill would ensure Coillte, which is responsible for 7% of the land in this State, not all of which is suitable for forestry, would be handled in a responsible way. The Bill would replace that very narrow commercial business along with a little sideline in some climate projects with a mandate that it be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.”
“This far exceeded the damage caused by Storm Darwin and others. It exceeded all previous records. We must talk very honestly about Sitka spruce, monoculture and how literal tinkering at the edges – whereby we get a few broadleaves planted around the edge of a big Sitka spruce plantation - will not do it and will not be enough. The Minister of State will be aware of my mandate for nature Bill, which has progressed partly through these Houses and which I will be bringing forward again in this term. It was a Bill to change the mandate of Coillte from a very short-term one, namely, the business of forestry on a commercial basis. We are aware that has been interpreted in shareholder letters from Government as cash-generating and concerned with how Government can get a little bit of cash quickly from Coillte. It does not even make very much.”
“I am not going to go into climate policy in detail because I would be here for the afternoon, but I will focus on a few of the key areas. Forestry has been spoken about. Others have talked of the importance of not having this wood be wasted and that all the fallen trees should be harvested and used because every tree that falls contains carbon that should not be wasted at a time when we cannot afford to waste any part of our planetary limit with respect to carbon production. However, we also need a shift in forestry policy. It is not simply about the money. For lots of people it is about the money and it is important that is recognised and supported, but it is also around changing the policies on forestry. A huge number of hectares of forestry were hit and just over 11,600 ha of Coillte's plantations were hit badly by the storm.”
“Now we are beginning to hit 1.5°C this year. We are in an era where it is not just about readiness but an urgency in what we do to prevent climate change. At this point it is not about preventing it but preventing the extremes of climate change. It is important and people have given valuable input into emergency response and how to improve and strengthen it. I appreciate the Minister came in with detail of the mechanisms that are in place, but it is also important to be able to hear from people when they talk about what worked and what did not work and adapting and shifting that. I will speak about two or three of the areas where we need not just better emergency response but better resilience, preparedness and shifts in policy so we avoid the kind of emergency situations and some of the catastrophes we have seen in recent times.”
“I will pick up where the previous speaker ended on the warnings we have had from Dr. Tara Shine and others. These extreme weather events are happening more often right across the world. I have spoken about the ten warmest years on record, but right across the world we are seeing an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms, drought, the wildfires that come with drought, of mud slides and the huge shifts in climate and the environment. These are the emergency events but there are also many other slightly slower moving shifts - devastating for farmers worldwide - and more extreme temperatures at higher levels right across the world. I remember not long ago in the previous Oireachtas we were talking about "Keep 1.5° Alive" in terms of the climate debate, because 1.5°C was going to be so devastating.”
“That directive, by the way, was introduced to improve human rights and environmental outcomes, guide companies towards sustainable operations and choices, and provide a level playing field for corporations. This action will punish those largest companies and corporations - it applies only to the largest companies and corporations - that have chosen to try to implement good standards in order to reward the laggards and those who are the drivers of climate change in the first place. We talk about sharing the burden. We cannot place the burden on the poorest of the world and those most vulnerable to climate change in order to chase a United States deregulatory agenda, which is gutting equality and has now left the Paris Agreement. Let us, Europe, stop chasing that and move in the other direction in order that we have a future.”
“Soon we will stop talking about the ten hottest years and we can start talking about the deadliest years, because this is the actual threat in terms of the liveability of our planet in the next decades, not the next centuries. We have a huge backward step today in that the European Commission has published a proposal to completely gut, in the words of our MEPs - indeed, a Fianna Fáil MEP, Barry Andrews, has called it that - the European Green Deal and to gut regulation of corporations, having had private meetings with large corporations such as ExxonMobil and all those who have caused the climate crisis. The EU Commission is now using language like "simplification" to describe its attempt to get rid of many of the key parts of the corporate sustainability due diligence directive.”
“The triple lock is actually what protects us from pressure and from being pressured into inappropriate words and inappropriate military action, including military action for interests or resources or some of the many protection rackets that we have seen some using their military for in recent times. The triple lock is a very important protection for us because it allows us to say "No", and that is a part of our sovereignty. We must have a reference to the UN that is proper and not simply interpretable. It should be borne in mind that Israel says it abides by international law. We need an actual anchor into the UN system. We have heard a lot about military threats, but the threat of climate change has not gone away. Everybody has lost interest in it, but we have just had the ten hottest years on record.”
“With regard to some of the comments made earlier, the triple lock is actually one of the very important things that link us to the United Nations, which is one of the great prizes we have had in terms of building and maintaining peace on this planet. Far from undermining our capacity to say "No", I would be very worried that without the triple lock those who get so embarrassed that they are not generally part of armies, as we have heard, who feel disapproval from other countries and believe they should act immediately, would be too vulnerable to pressure.”
“What is he doing about the process in terms of the idea of it reopening to level 1? He said he supports the CSDDD. Will the Irish State continue to implement the CSDDD rather than putting things on ice until this new revised version comes through, which could take years? Will we continue to give rewards to the good companies rather than reward the laggards that have failed to act?”
“The alarming thing is that the proposal is to bring this back to level 1. We take a process that took years and go back to the drawing board. Those are years we do not have. We are at the end of the ten hottest years on record. It is frankly patronising to the public that the word “simplification” gets used again and again when what is being done is clearly deregulation and a move away from sustainability and acting on climate. Whatever the threats to Europe we hear about, let us be clear what the threats to the world and Europe are if we fail to act on climate. The idea that we would be competitively chasing the US, which has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, and setting the world on fire to do so is not acceptable. I want two answers from the Minister of State because I did not have them.”
“As the Minister of State can see, I am very concerned. I would like to know what position Ireland is taking. Ireland played a positive role in the original negotiation. What are we doing now about this alarming development?”
“In fact, we are hearing that it will be published today, and will not look at simplification of reporting, but will try to remove civil liability so there is no liability for corporations. It will limit who it applies to even further than the tiny percentage. It will also say that you can have a climate transition plan, but you do not need to implement it, which is effectively meaningless.”
“I note there have been closed consultations, effectively in secret, with large corporations only and very few of the large corporations that support this directive. Many of them support having proper sustainability because they want to be able to continue their business on a liveable planet. However, companies like ExxonMobil and other large fossil fuel companies that have caused the climate crisis are the ones invited into the room with the European Commission to say how they want it to change these directives, and what changes they want it to make. I hear the proposal will be published today. My Commencement matter said that surely it should not be published without a proper open public consultation and, for example, the Irish State taking a stand in support of proper sustainability standards and due diligence.”
“Opening up the directive is, as has been said by the director of the European Coalition for Corporate Justice: ...a full-scale deregulation designed to dismantle corporate accountability and abandon the EU's Green Deal commitments ... [signalling] that corporate profits are more important people's lives or the future of our planet. That is something Barry Andrews MEP agreed with when describing this as a gutting of corporate accountability and of the EU Green Deal. Why was there no impact assessment and why has there been no public consultation on the proposal as required under the Commission's own better regulation principles? What engagement has the Irish State had to demand a better process on this?”
“This in itself is really shocking because it sends a signal, in terms of the balance of powers within Europe, that the Commission feels it can trample on the work done by national governments through the European Council and by elected representatives in the European Parliament if it does not like the outcome and can effectively seek to scrap those laws. To be very clear, it is being framed as a simplification but it is not. It is being framed as being related to reporting. The corporate sustainability due diligence directive is not to do with reporting, primarily, and anything that is to do with reporting could have been dealt with through other subsidiary Acts and tools attached.”
“Companies that engage in best practice have already started the process of implementing due diligence and proper processes within their companies. This applies to the very largest companies. This is not something that applies to small or medium companies but to the very largest corporations in order that they would have proper standards governing their supply chains and their impact on human rights and on the environment. Along with the taxonomy, it is now proposed that the corporate sustainability reporting directive agreed just last year be opened up and started again in a back to the drawing board move from the European Commission.”
“I hope the Minister of State will speak to us about a matter of great urgency. My Commencement matter concerns what steps Ireland is taking to ensure there is a proper process for the very alarming proposal by the European Commission for what is called the "omnibus Bill", which has been called the "bonfire of regulation", to open up the corporate sustainability due diligence directive. This directive was agreed just last year after a lengthy process of many years in which our own Government played an important role, and on which I spoke to the previous Minister, in, for example, pushing for stronger gender equality provisions. Our national business and human rights strategy strongly references the corporate sustainability due diligence directive.”
“That is fine. I join with what Senator Clonan said. We need policies that are clear and we do not need to dismantle our triple lock if Ireland is going to show leadership. That we are doing it because other countries were embarrassed sends a sign we need a triple lock and we cannot trust our Government to say "No" when it needs to say "No" and to say "Yes" in terms of the implementation of international law when it needs to say "Yes".”
“Ireland has the opportunity to be the champions on international law and the international rules-based order by showing that we take breaches of those rules and laws very seriously and take actions such as the appropriate basic action of passing the full occupied territories Bill. That is just one piece. Giving leadership in these ways is how Ireland shows courage. There is nothing in the triple lock that stops Ireland from providing leadership on international law and its implementation. There is nothing that stops us showing leadership when it comes to the areas I have spoken about on previous occasions, such as data and online regulation. We have seen the attempts to disrupt the German elections, for example. There is a reason people are giving out about regulation. It is because regulation has an impact. Finally-----”
“These include 162 healthcare workers for whose release the UN has been calling, reports of mistreatment and torture, six children frozen overnight because shelter was not allowed to enter the Gaza Strip, a new massive expansion of settlements and the tanks that rolled through the West Bank very recently. These are all important. It is important that we look at them. The Taoiseach spoke yesterday about the international rules-based order and how important it is, but the international rules-based order and international law are important in the principle that they are applied everywhere and for everyone.”
“I want to raise an issue that occurred in the past 24 hours. We heard how a former Member of this House, Lynn Boylan, who is now an MEP, was refused entry and deported when attempting to visit Israel as a part of an official EU delegation in an official capacity on an Irish diplomatic passport. Two Members of the European Parliament and their officials were denied entry to Israel and denied the right to perform their roles in terms of international observation and international diplomacy. This points to a time when we are still seeing extraordinary breaches of human rights.”
“I would say that whatever the outcome, and this is the same message I gave on the election of the Cathaoirleach, the Leas-Chathaoirleach when elected serves the Seanad and does not serve any political party. I know that both candidates understand that. Both Senators Byrne and Flynn know that the Leas-Chathaoirleach does not serve a political party or the Government. The Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach are there to facilitate the Seanad in its fullest sense being as powerful, impactful and relevant to the people of Ireland as possible and a space where genuine change will happen. I hope we can look back, in four or five years' time, at the what the 27th Seanad achieved. Whatever the outcome, I hope that whoever takes on the role of Leas-Chathaoirleach will take that on board and reflect that in their service.”
“Electing Senator Flynn as Leas-Chathaoirleach would have been a wonderful opportunity - it is still a wonderful opportunity - to put a marker down in terms of the idea of minority voices and major change. Regardless of the outcome of what happens today, we should decide collectively to ensure that we use the powers the Seanad has, the responsibility it has and the fact that we all come with very different mandates. Returning Senators will know, and new Senators may learn, that sometimes within their parliamentary parties they will have to really assert that the Seanad has a different perspective on an issue and that Ministers cannot be guaranteed a rubber stamp when they come in here. Sometimes the debate across the House has to be able to lead to change.”
“I am not going to go into the many different parts of reform. I acknowledge the Cathaoirleach, who tried to bring reforms forward in his period. There has been a betrayal of the message of reform since 2013. People voted to keep the Seanad because they valued it. Bear in mind that most of those who voted in the referendum to retain the Seanad did not have a vote in the Seanad. They voted for something because they saw its value and importance and wanted to be a part of it. The message needs to come across strongly from all of us as Senators that we value the Seanad, that we see it as something different and as adding something important to the political space, and that we recognise that it works a little bit differently and that it has something to bring.”
“I was not going to speak but I am moved to do so. I am very proud to be supporting Senator Flynn. She is an outstanding candidate. We celebrated during the previous Oireachtas term the centenary of the Seanad. One of the themes was minority voices, major changes, as the Seanad has a record of bringing forward minority and different perspectives. I do not mean in a geographical way, but in a way that cuts across and captures the different experiences and perspectives throughout Ireland as well as major changes. When the Seanad asserts its power and capacity, it has a huge record of making significant change, shifting the dialogue, changing laws and having an impact on people's lives. We are into the next hundred years now. Like others, I campaigned for retention and reform of the Seanad.”
“These are the questions I have about the Bill and supporting it and how it impacts. It would also send a very good signal if the Minister present were able to accept some of the amendments that are looking for practical information and practical accountability in these decisions in order that, the next time we are making it 30 Ministers or whatever else we will go to in the future, we actually are doing it on an evidence base of it having made a difference for the people of Ireland, for Parliament and for effective policy.”
“This is what I want to hear when the Minister responds to this debate: that we will see junior Ministers coming in here and accepting good amendments from the Opposition when there is no reason not to; that we will see junior Ministers making decisions; that things junior Ministers start are not just pilot schemes but actually become a genuine shift, properly resourced, in national policy; and that we will have accountability for junior Ministers, but also that that does not become a screen for accountability for senior Ministers. If we have a situation on Commencement Matters or on debates where we are not getting the answers we need from a junior Minister and this House requests that we need the senior Minister to come in here and be accountable, the senior Minister should be made available to the Seanad for that reason.”
“What actually matter are the structures of power, the actual structures of accountability, and how all of these junior Ministers are going to fit into that. I have seen very good people throw themselves at the role of junior Minister and not being able to deliver as they should because they are hamstrung. I have also seen people, and I not naming anyone, going into the role of junior Minister who seem to think they are still backbenchers, who do not even seem to have an appetite for doing anything with it, and who literally say " I do not have any power". They do have power and they need to have power.”
“There is what they do in their Departments, ensuring they have actual discretion, decision-making power, meaningful resources and the capacity to follow through, and then there is the backup piece where, when they engage with us, be it in a committee or here in Seanad, they are ready to answer questions, to speak to their brief, to debate their brief, ready for a back-and-forth on their brief, and ready to change position on their brief if that is what is called for and if the case is made. This is the really important thing here. We do not want it to be the case of giving it more importance, with there being a badge and the name and the keyword you care about is being used all the time.”
“They need to be coming in with the power in areas like AI, positive ageing and age equality, and biodiversity to make actual decisions in their Department, with civil servants whom they do not answer to but who answer to them. They need to have clear realms of autonomy of engagement, where of course they will talk to Cabinet and to their senior Minister, but where they also have authority and where we can meaningfully engage.”
“They should not have to go back and ask the senior Minister or be unable to say why they cannot accept it because the person who can actually answer the question is not in the room. Junior Ministers are not someone you send in to give soundbites or speeches and act as spokespeople only then to deny them the actual possibility of meaningfully engaging with us here in the Seanad on the really important subject matters and issues. It cannot be feel-good, giving them a €5 million budget or a €20 million budget for something, that is what they have, they get to do a few bits and pieces, have some photo opportunities around the country and places feel a Minister has visited them.”
“What I do not want, and we need assurances, and I say this having been through two terms and having seen a lot of junior Ministers come and go, is junior Ministers who are there to act as a buffer for a senior Minister so that a senior Minister does not have to come into the room and answer the difficult questions. We want junior Ministers coming into the room who are empowered to actually answer questions, to make decisions and to accept amendments. If a junior Minister is seeing the case made for an amendment on an issue that is not at odds with the programme for Government, where it is a sensible proposal coming from the Opposition, the junior Minister should be able to accept that amendment.”
“Going back to the area of older people, I would maybe add a cautionary note that while one of the things we have that came out of having a junior Minister was the national positive ageing strategy, the issue was that the national positive ageing strategy really was not implemented. The issue is that junior Ministers can find themselves in the position of being the ones who make great plans but do not actually have access to the resources to deliver them. My concern is not about the cost of the secretaries or the cost of a car or whatever it might be. My concern is how junior Ministries fit in to the Government and to the parliamentary piece here.”
“I also recognise that there are some very talented individuals who have been appointed or will be appointed to junior ministerial roles and that there are some important subject matters. AI has been spoken about, and in terms of a threat, AI is one that probably should have a linkage across to the Department of the environment given its impact on environment and energy. Those are pieces that get missed out and there are significant dangers in regulatory areas that are going to be crucial. On older people, we have had very good Ministers and junior Ministers for older people, such as Áine Brady and others who have served. I acknowledge in terms of biodiversity, for example, a former colleague of mine from the climate committee, Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan, who I know has a genuine passion in this area.”
“Regarding some of those who are looking for this, I hope the Minister will take on board calls for studies of things like cost-effectiveness and the added value so that we have that information and we do not suddenly have in the next Oireachtas, because we have been in this place before, another number being produced without being able to look to and actually have evidence of what the impact may or may not have been in terms of junior Ministers. I will speak quite briefly. My focus is somewhat on a concern or a danger that comes with junior Ministries. I am quite excited about some of the junior Ministries and I recognise some individuals here in the House who have done very good work in junior ministerial roles previously.”
“I will be very brief because I do not have amendments in this and those who do have amendments will be speaking and putting forward very good cases for why we need very good cases when making such a decision and, given, in fairness, some of what has been put forward by some of the Members regarding the arguments for why we need the Ministers of State, the importance of us actually having and being able to look at the information on what the additional value will be, what the role will be and how it will be envisaged, before we go jumping into the decision.”
“It is crucial at this time that we do not bow our heads because of a short-term fear of corporate response or unhappiness and cede our power to ensure corporations are regulated by the State and democracy and the people remain paramount in the five years ahead, which will be a crucial and perhaps challenging five years. Perhaps we could have debates on those two topics.”
“Armies do not protect against that. Having legal standards we all stand by gives us the greatest protection as a smaller country. Having two or three more tanks or ship - although we do need to resource our Naval Service, including those who work in it, a little more - does not protect us. What protects us and how we contribute to European protection is by taking our role as regulator in such areas as data and online regulation very seriously. Crucial to that is standing by regulations and standards at European level and championing their retention, because if we get rid of them it will be a slippery slope. I will finish with a Sumerian proverb I found on the Internet - I hope it is an accurate one: do not bow your head for that which cuts heads.”
“In fact, they drive innovation that is compatible with democracy. Right now, there are proposals in the EU for an omnibus Bill that is being called "the bonfire of regulation", to destroy a huge number of the standards we demand of corporations. Ireland has a key voice, especially in applying regulations and defending the principle of regulation because we are the key anchor for many of the large international tech corporations. Many Senators spoke eloquently about neutrality yesterday and I hope we will discuss it further because we need to defend our neutrality. It is precious and an asset to Europe and the world. Let us be clear, the United States of America has a huge army. Germany is the most heavily armed country in Europe. Neither of those countries is being defended or protected against assaults on laws, checks and balances.”
“Right now we are seeing extraordinary attacks on the concepts of international law, the rule of international law and the idea that there are common principles and standards we will apply to one another. In other countries we are also seeing attacks on the legal and political checks and balances and that means an attack on people's rights. I therefore urge that we try to address this. One way we in Ireland can show that we take international law seriously is by legislating for it and delivering the occupied territories Bill. That is one of the clearest signals we can send to the world that we take international law and the International Court of Justice seriously. We need to see - and I urge for a debate on this - regulations, laws and rules. Regulations and standards do not slow down innovation.”
“I second that it would be useful to have a debate on forestry, which would also look at reforming forestry policies, including the mandates of such organisations as Coillte. We have seen that monoculture does not work and is dangerous. We do not simply want a short-term solution where we replant more of the same. We need to move, within Coillte and our wider subsidised forestry policy, towards the idea of something that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable, rather than have short-term, commercial monoculture which does not deliver for the climate or in the face of climate change. I will expand on something I mentioned yesterday about how important international and national law are.”
“It is really important that we, and even the Leader of the House, carry through the respect for democracy so we do not have, for example, small cuts away at democracy like the guillotining of Bills, the shortening of debates or the kind of winner-takes-all approach we sometimes see in politics, to its detriment. Instead, we must really give space and respect to the Seanad in this new term. Again, I congratulate the Cathaoirleach. I look forward very much to working with him and all the Members in the term ahead.”
“The checks and balances we have are crucial in terms of democracy and law, both here and internationally. It is a time when the seriousness with which we take our political role and our role in terms of the law, internationally and nationally, will be a crucial test. It is absolutely the case that we are the guardians in ensuring the continuation of those powers and capacities. I congratulate the Cathaoirleach. I look forward to his many schemes and initiatives. He had dozens of them in his previous half-term in office, so I do not know what he will do with a full term. I am sure we will all get many very interesting calls about many ideas.”
“I join in congratulating everybody who has been elected and re-elected. Specifically, I congratulate the Cathaoirleach. He understands very well, of course, that the mandate as Cathaoirleach is not a mandate from Government but a mandate from the House and from all across the Seanad. In his previous term as Cathaoirleach, he showed that he understood very well that responsibility to the Seanad and recognised the crucial role the Seanad plays as a check and balance within our political system. It is not the property of the Executive but represents parliamentary power, parliamentary scrutiny and those responsibilities. I am very glad to have somebody who has that depth of care for scrutiny and for ensuring we look to our role as legislators and someone who is not complacent about democracy.”