Catherine Ardagh
Dublin South-Central · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“Many Members here today know the real and lasting impact cancer has on individuals and families. It is something that touches almost every household in this country. It does not discriminate. The Bill is about fairness, dignity and giving cancer survivors the freedom to truly move on with their lives.”
“This is particularly in the case of child sexual abuse material investigations. An Garda Síochána regularly engages with its counterparts in other EU states and with international organisations, such as Interpol and Europol, in the fight against what are absolutely heinous crimes, as I think we can all agree.”
“A lot of investigations into child sexual abuse material may be referred from international partners, and it is imperative that gardaí have all the tools they require at their disposal to co-operate internationally in this field.”
“I take this opportunity to thank everyone here and acknowledge the constructive spirit in which Members have engaged with this Bill since 2022. There is a shared recognition across the Houses that this legislation will make a meaningful difference in people's lives, as described by Senator Nelson Murray.”
“The Government has now gone further than the voluntary code that is currently in place, reducing the relevant period from seven years to five years and increasing the sum-assured threshold from €500,000 to €650,000 to reflect the current housing market to support survivors to buy homes.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for his support for this legislation. I also note the other issues he raised in relation to wider criminal justice and Garda issues. However, I will go back to discussing Deputy Kelly's amendment, tabled by Deputy Sheehan.”
The complete record
Every one of 423 lines we hold for Catherine Ardagh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 9.
“Section 42 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 prohibits misleading commercial practices including, under section 43, false information on the existence, extent or nature of any approval or sponsorship, whether direct or indirect, of the product by others. The unauthorised use of someone’s image in advertising material to suggest that the person endorses or is affiliated with a product could arguably be considered a misleading commercial practice. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission is responsible for enforcing advertising rules in Ireland. The regulatory framework for Al at the domestic and EU level is also very much evolving.”
“Social media platforms are frequently named as defendants in such actions, primarily as a mechanism for content removal and identity disclosure of third parties posting content. Data protection law may also be relevant in addressing the unauthorised use and dissemination of synthetic deepfakes using generative Al tools. Content relating to personal characteristics is regarded as "personal data" and, accordingly, data controllers are required to demonstrate a lawful basis for processing such data. Creating or sharing an Al-generated video of an identifiable individual entails the processing of that individual's personal data. Unless this processing falls within a lawful basis under GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, which is unlikely if done without consent or any legitimate justification, it is unlawful.”
“Such a statement includes a visual image, sound or gesture and a statement that is published on the Internet or via electronic communication. Further, the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 provides a statutory power for the Circuit Court, previously in the High Court, to issue a Norwich Pharmacal order directing a digital services provider to identify an anonymous poster of defamatory online material. This makes it a lot more accessible to members of the public. If defamation is proven the usual remedies, damages and an injunction to remove or restrain publication are available. In recent years, a number of individuals have taken High Court actions relating to online content, including the use of deepfakes, that seek damages for defamation, malicious falsehood, data rights infringement, personality rights appropriation and passing off.”
“Separately, the use of deepfakes in certain circumstances could constitute harassment offence under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997, where such use seriously interferes with another's peace and privacy or causes them alarm, distress or harm. It is also important to be cognisant of existing civil remedies for individuals who have been subject to the unauthorised digital cloning or imitation of their likeness, voice or persona by Al systems. Under lrish law, a person can already take a legal action against a natural or legal person who makes a defamatory statement to another person. The Defamation Act 2009 defines a defamatory statement as "a statement that tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society".”
“There is currently no stand-alone provision under Irish law that provides that identity theft or fraud constitutes an offence. However, it is addressed through a combination of legislative measures, primarily the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act 2001 and the Criminal Justice (Offences Relating to Information Systems) Act 2017. Section 6(1) of the 2001 Act provides for a broad offence of making gain or causing loss by deception, which can be applied to the fraudulent use of another person's identity. This can encompass a range of identity-based misconduct, including the use of deepfakes, where deception results in financial or personal gain.”
“A failure by a platform to protect against illegal or harmful content being shown can lead to significant financial sanctions and, under the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act, continued non-compliance can lead to criminal sanctions for senior management. Under the Digital Services Act, the European Commission has powers with respect to the proliferation of illegal content online on platforms and the protection of fundamental rights, including protection for minors. The EU Council and Parliament also reached political agreement on 7 May 2026 on the proposed the digital omnibus on Al. The proposed measure will prohibit Al systems that generate non-consensual sexually explicit and intimate content or child sexual abuse material, such as Al nudification apps. It is intended this specific ban will take effect from 2 December 2026.”
“This includes intimate images, such as deepfakes, which have been altered or doctored prior to their distribution or publication. Similarly, the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 is framed so that no distinction can be made between Al-generated material and other child sexual abuse material. The production and distribution of child sexual abuse material attracts a sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment. Coimisiún na Meán, as Ireland's online safety and media regulator, is at the heart of Ireland's online safety framework, including the regulation of social media. Under the online safety framework, there is an obligation on platforms to act on reports of illegal content.”
“There are existing criminal law provisions that address the misuse of deepfakes in certain circumstances. For instance, the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020, known as Coco's Law, creates an offence of distribution or publication of an intimate image without consent with intent to cause harm to the victim and attracts a maximum penalty of up to seven years' imprisonment, as well as an offence to threaten to distribute or publish such an image. The Act also provides for a strict liability offence, with a lower penalty, for engaging in the recording, distribution or publication of an "intimate image" without consent, with no requirement to prove an intention to cause harm. The definition of an "intimate image" under the 2020 Act is intentionally broad and includes any visual representation of a person.”
“While we will seek to continue to foster innovation and creativity, we must ensure that proper safeguards are in place against misuse of Al and other digital technologies, as the Deputy has clearly outlined. Determining the means of most effectively addressing the misuse of generative Al and other digital tools will require further legal and policy analysis, taking account of existing legal remedies, statutory provisions and the wider national and EU regulatory framework. While lauding opportunities, we should not be afraid to also discuss the attendant risks that may also arise. It may be the case that the creation of a specific and delimited criminal offence category relating to the unauthorised creation, use and distribution of such personal identifying characteristics could play a role in addressing these harms.”
“The Government supports the Deputy Byrne's initiative and looks forward to working with him on it. The Protection of Voice and Image Bill 2025 seeks to address a real harm and growing threat in tackling the non-consensual use of an individual's personal characteristics and identity for the purpose of advertising, political messaging, fundraising or influencing public opinion. The Bill recognises the use of digital tools, including Al, to replicate or generate an individual's personal characteristics without that individual's consent and for clearly malicious purposes must be policed. The Bill will undoubtedly play an invaluable role in the push for further concrete actions to address this issue.”
“We have also seen a proliferation of Al-generated disinformation campaigns spreading falsehoods with the deliberate intent to deceive. Hyper-realistic synthetic media, including the use of deepfakes, has been increasingly deployed to influence political discourse, erode public trust and foster polarisation in many countries, including Ireland, especially - and worryingly - during election cycles. There have been very significant concerns about the misuse of generative Al for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images or the creation of child sexual abuse material. It should be noted such content is already illegal under Irish law. Platforms must remove it when reported and very large online platforms must mitigate the risk of it appearing on their services in the first place.”
“In that context, consideration of the Bill's contents is timely. As Al tools have become more capable, with Al video becoming more proficient at depicting people realistically, opportunistic scams have proliferated across social media that misuse Al to impersonate public figures, including the Taoiseach and Deputy Byrne himself, as he outlined. These are clear attempts by fraudsters to exploit the online public through digital deception. Across a broad range of countries, deepfakes of various politicians, business leaders and celebrities have been circulated advertising fake investments intended to trick members of the public into sharing their bank details. The realistic reproduction of a well-known figure's voice or likeness adds a veneer of authenticity and credibility to such financial scams.”
“We are committed to reinforcing Ireland's position as a digital leader and regulatory hub and to strengthening our profile as a location for investment and a global centre for applied Al. Ireland possesses a vibrant and established innovation ecosystem, attracting eight of the leading providers of foundation Al models, which have chosen Ireland as their European headquarters. However, the evolution of Al technologies has given rise to new risks and challenges outlined by Deputy Byrne, including safety and privacy risks. We are committed to providing timely, robust and comprehensive responses to such challenges as and when they may arise. Ireland will continue to be a strong voice in Europe for a digital economy which supports competitiveness and innovation, while also protecting data privacy and fundamental rights.”
“We have already seen how AI-generated content can be used to harass, intimidate and humiliate individuals, often with devastating consequences for their mental health and reputation. Legislation such as this sends an important message that innovation must always be accompanied by responsibility and respect for fundamental rights. It is often said that legislation struggles to keep pace with technology but Deputy Byrne has ensured that this House is actively engaging with these challenges, rather than simply reacting to them. I am, therefore, pleased to advise that the Government does not propose to oppose the progression of the Bill. The Government recognises the importance of the digital economy to Ireland and the profound opportunities presented by Al.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach. I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, on this important initiative proposed by Deputy Malcolm Byrne. The Deputy is to be commended on his work on this issue over many years and I am pleased to advise that the Government does not propose to oppose the progression of this Bill. As artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated, so too do the ways in which it can be misused, as outlined by Deputy Byrne. For many women and girls in particular, the unauthorised manipulation of their image or voice is not simply a technological issue but a deeply personal and traumatic violation of their dignity, privacy and sense of security.”
“In the very beginning of my contribution I did lay out that the argument for recording ethnicity in stop and search encounters is very much recognised by the Department. The proposal that I outlined is at this point a proposal. It is something the Department would like to consider. I have listened and I have read back on the debates. It is something that will be thought out, with the advices of the Attorney General and with the input of the CSO. At this stage I have nothing further to add.”
“The person's gender and the geographic location of the stop are collected on the PULSE system. The name, address, date of birth, geographic location and gender are noted on the PULSE system at this point.”
“This Bill focuses on strengthening the requirement for objective justification, improving oversight and accountability, and ensuring that stop and search is targeted at preventing harm and reducing violence, rather than broad or indiscriminate use. Evidence from the UK shows that simply collecting additional democratic data has not on its own reduced violence or improved trust between police and the communities they serve. Mandatory recording of ethnicity has not consistently delivered better outcomes and can produce unintended consequences. These include increasing the administrative burden on officers, reducing time available for effective policing and heightening tension during encounters where individuals feel categorised or profiled. I am not in a position to accept the amendments.”
“Anonymised demographic data can help to identify trends in serious crime safely, but operational recording risks profiling and creating tensions during encounters. As such, the approach in this Bill prioritises effectiveness and fairness over additional demographic recording, which has not been shown to deliver meaningful change in operational policing and could contribute to inaccurate data and racial profiling. The fundamental issue in this Bill is not the lack of data, but how stop and search powers are used. What matters most is that these powers are intelligence-led, proportionate and clearly justified.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir as ucht a chomhghairdeas. On the proposal of a unique identifier, we know from section 13 that those who are stopped and searched will have their dates of birth, names and addresses gathered. The proposal as it is at the moment is that that information would be matched not by An Garda Síochána, but via PPSNs by the CSO, to get anonymised data on ethnicity, race and nationality. We know that the CSO is a trusted research provider of criminal justice statistics and informs policy. In Ireland and Sweden, we are examining the use of anonymised data for research and policy purposes rather than just for operational stop and searches. Similarly, Sweden collects place of birth information for research, not operational policing, so it is not directly comparable to stop and search.”
“There is a better way and that is the use of a common identification number for individuals engaging with the criminal justice system. As more data is captured on the national census, more information can be reported more frequently without the need to amend primary legislation. On a broader note, the 2025 report entitled An Evidence Review on Ethnic Monitoring in the Criminal Justice System authored by Brandon, Bracken and Pillay, which was commissioned by the Department of justice, reported in one of its findings that concern was expressed by participants that publishing data on minority ethnic groups involved with the criminal justice system could be interpreted negatively by wider society and result in stigmatisation of these minorities. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendments today.”
“Turning to the specifics of the amendments as to what and how the information is to be recorded, section 13 already provides for the recording of key information about a person stopped under sections 9 and 10. The person's gender and geographic location of the stop are also collected and recorded on the PULSE system. The nationality is recorded, where known, but during a search, it may not be a question that is asked - especially if an arrest does not follow from the search. The amendments could be read as requiring a member to prolong a stop and search to further collect information as to the person's ethnicity, social characteristics, place of birth, occupation and religion. A person's place of birth, occupation and religion are already captured on the national census. The term "social characteristic" is not.”
“Subject to consideration of the legal advice, once received, it is envisaged that the necessary and appropriate enabling basis would be provided for in a suitable legislative vehicle to take into account race, ethnicity and perhaps where you are living. A programme for Government commitment to introduce a common identification number for individuals engaging with the criminal justice system is a priority. In turn, this will address the lacuna in the implementation of long-standing Government policy, as set out in the national data infrastructure, which seeks to establish the consistent use of unique, trusted identifiers in public service administrative data, focusing on citizens, business and address identification.”
“In Ireland, the Garda and the Government are exploring the use of an anonymised demographic information system, such as ethnicity or place of birth and linked via a PPS number, for serious crimes. This approach is intended for research and policy planning, not operational stop and search, and demonstrates that demographic data can be used safely to identify trends without increasing profiling risks. The policy is evolving on legal advice from the Attorney General. On the proposal for a PPSN-based unique identifier for the criminal justice system, it is very much under consideration by the Department. The Department has sought legal advice from the Attorney General on the proposal.”
“What matters most is that these powers are intelligence led, proportionate and clearly justified. This Bill focuses on strengthening the requirement for objective justification, improving oversight and accountability and ensuring stop and search is targeted at preventing harm and reducing violence, rather than broad or indiscriminate use. I note the point made that it is broad and indiscriminate but we need the data to back it up so we can gather that information in a very visible way. There are other ways to understand the broader patterns of offending and victimisation without requiring demographic information to be recorded during every stop and search encounter.”
“Daily, they are putting themselves in harm's way. When we are having this debate, we have to remember that and I thank the Senator for putting that on the floor of the Seanad today. I appreciate that. Turning to the race and ethnicity issue, I read the first debate in the Seanad about the amendments being ruled out of order. I went through it and the argument for recording ethnicity in stop and search encounters is recognised by the Department and is often presented to improve transparency, accountability and the identification of discriminatory patterns. There is also a desire to document who is stopped and searched, including age, gender, ethnicity and the justification for the stop. The fundamental issue is not the lack of data but how stop and search powers are used.”
“The purpose of recording information under section 13 is to permit the person concerned to get a record of the incident. The individual may require that for a number of personal reasons - this is in relation to the point Senator Byrne discussed - but it is intended to provide clear, factual information on which the person may rely. It was never intended to be used as a basis for reporting on the activity of An Garda Síochána. An example might be if you were driving a company car, you were pulled in and you needed to get evidence for work from the Garda that the reason you were late was because you were pulled in. Certain information they have gathered would be made available to you on an individual basis. That is the rationale for that section. I agree with the Senator on the important work members of the Garda do at the coalface.”
“There is one Government amendment in this grouping, which is amendment No. 25. It intends to make the language in section 13(2)(e) more precise on the basis that something seized will not be evidence relating to the commission of an offence but suspected of being such evidence. I will speak on all four amendments together. It is fair to say that in every walk of life, whether we are medics, politicians or gardaí, a subconscious bias comes into play. If you do not measure it, we cannot fix it. That is part of the context of what we are looking at. As for the PULSE system alone, when it comes to measuring ethnicity and those targeted, whether it be for their race, where they are living, their communities, their gender or their age, it is not the only way to skin the cat and to collect the data.”
“In particular with youth offenders, it seems quite unfair and it is something I would like to look at in my role in the youth diversion space where we could get input from the Senator regarding her work with the Irish Penal Reform Trust.”
“It is designed for formal detention, police interrogation and court proceedings. That is well funded by An Garda Síochána. Transplanting this into fast-paced street environments is logistically impractical. Waiting for a certified interpreter risks stretching brief stops into prolonged periods of involuntary street detention. The Bill already addresses communication barriers where a severe language barrier frustrates a street search. Section 11 permits a Garda member to transfer the interaction to a custody facility where established interpretation infrastructure ensures search integrity and individual rights. I understand the point made by Senator Ruane regarding the extra charges and how when somebody has an extra charge, it stays on his or her record forever.”
“Obviously there are serious consequences. Regarding subsection (c), the proposed requirement for a mandatory non-compliance warning is unnecessary because under section 12, the legal requirement for a notice is satisfied. When the Garda states the precise statute power authorising the search, this establishes its compulsory nature. Mandating an additional explicit warning regarding criminal prosecution serves no practical legal purpose. Instead it risks unnecessarily complicating a standard procedure that is already set out. Regarding subsection (d), a roadside stop and search is intended as a brief, temporary and preventative check. In contrast, the right to a formal interpretation service is a custody safeguard, which we know works. We have translators for that.”
“These are technical amendments. Amendment No. 21 is intended to correct a cross-reference in section 11(3). Amendment No. 23 will refine the wording in section 13 by deleting “, in accordance with this section,”. Amendment No. 29 makes a technical change to section 14: “Subject to this section, when” will be replaced by “When”. Amendment No. 48 amends section 25. It is a technical change to delete “made” and substitute “given” for consistency with section 25(2). Amendment No. 50 amends section 29 by deleting “to give to him or her” and substituting “to provide him or her with” to address the concept of biometric data, which we are retaining in this provision. Amendment No. 52 amends Schedule 2 by addressing an incorrect cross-reference; this will delete line 2 and substitute “ Sections 17(1)(a) and 27(1)(a) ”.”
“We will also follow up on the facts in relation to Mothers Against Genocide in terms of what exactly was the outcome there in relation to that lady.”
“The threat of a cavity search should never be used to intimidate or cause psychological harm. An Garda Síochána has strict guidelines and rules on how intimate searches are to be conducted. They can never be conducted in a public space; it always has to be done in a private setting. Depending on the particular power the Garda is using, searches should only be carried out where necessary and cannot be used for harassment. It they are ever used for harassment, that should be reported to the ombudsman. On the figures for strip-searches where a doctor is not present, we will have to investigate that further. The Senator asked for mapping information. We do not have that available today but we will investigate further.”
“Where a search of a person in custody involves removal of clothing other than headgear or a coat, jacket, glove or similar article of clothing, no person of the opposite sex shall be present unless that person is either a doctor or the member in charge considers that the presence of that person is necessary by reason of the violent conduct of the person to be searched. A search of a person in custody involving removal of underclothing shall, where practical, be carried out by a doctor. As an operational matter, it is more appropriate to regulations than primary legislation. I cannot accept the amendment.”
“I appreciate the sensitivities of the situation the amendment seeks to address in relation to that particular incident. I think it was one lady at the time. Under sections 9 and 10, a Garda member must have reasonable grounds to search a person or vehicle. The Bill already provides that gardaí will require a person to attend a Garda custody facility for the purposes of a search of the nature that the amendment describes. Once a person enters a Garda station, the member in charge is responsible for their welfare and safety. The Criminal Justice Act 1984 (Treatment of Persons in Custody in Garda Síochána Stations) Regulations 1987 provide, under regulation 17, several of the protections sought. A person in custody shall not be searched by a person other than a doctor of the opposite sex.”
“This amendment could restrict members from using these specific identifying factors to establish grounds. I cannot support the amendment. I will also speak to amendment No. 20, unless the Senator would like to come back in.”
“I thank the Senator. I do recall the coverage at the time in relation to that incident. I think it was a Muslim lady who was involved. While I understand the concerns reflected in this amendment, sections 9 and 10 already establish a robust statutory threshold of reasonable grounds for suspicion. This threshold precludes treating personal traits like age, race or clothing style as independently constituting reasonable grounds, as such reliance would be discriminatory and unconstitutional. The amendment also poses operational risks. While a person's age or vehicle type can never be the sole basis for a search, there are scenarios where these factors must form part of an assessment, for example, if a Garda is searching for a specific stolen vehicle or seeking an abducted child matching a precise age profile.”
“In practice, where a vehicle is stationary and no person appears to be in charge of it, the relevant search power will depend on the circumstances and on the nature of the suspected offence. Such situations are dealt with under existing offence-based search powers, for example under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 where drug-related suspicion arises or under other applicable enactments depending on the circumstances and not by reference to a separate category of abandoned vehicle. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.”
“Amendment No. 16 is a technical amendment to section 10 to delete “in or” and substitute “in, on or” for precision in page 10, line 21. Amendment No. 17 is an amendment to section 10 to delete lines 23 and 24 and align the language with other provisions of the Bill. On amendment No. 18 in the name of Senator McDowell, this is not considered necessary as section 10 is not intended to establish a separate regime based on whether a vehicle is attended or unattended but instead operates where a member has reasonable grounds to suspect the commission of a Schedule 1 offence and permits the stopping of a vehicle and the search of that vehicle and any persons in or accompanying it.”
“It is about survivors, advocates, doctors, lawyers, civil servants, insurers and politicians all coming together in a meaningful way to improve people’s lives. I am proud to have played a small role in initiating this legislation. I am proud of everybody who stayed with it and helped shape it. Most important, I am proud that Ireland is taking this step for cancer survivors and their families. I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, and I commend the Bill to the House.”
“As somebody who has worked extensively on cancer advocacy and healthcare issues, I have spoken to many survivors who felt deeply upset that despite being medically well and discharged from treatment, they still felt financially excluded. Many felt forgotten. Tonight, through this legislation, we are saying clearly that they are not forgotten, that we recognise their recovery, that we support their future and that surviving cancer should not prevent somebody from buying a home, raising a family or planning for the future. Politics is often criticised, but legislation like this reminds us, as others have said, what politics can achieve when people work together constructively and collaboratively. This Bill is not about ownership. It is about collective effort.”
“This is important because cancer outcomes and survivorship rates have improved enormously over the years, and our laws must reflect modern medicine and modern realities. The legislation also increases the mortgage protection threshold. This matters enormously given the reality of today’s housing market. The legislation also provides for a periodic review linked to CSO residential property price data and stakeholder engagement. Above the threshold, normal underwriting provisions can still apply but ultimately, this legislation is not about actuarial tables or underwriting models. It is about dignity. It is about recognising that people who survive cancer deserve the opportunity to fully move forward with their lives.”
“It moved the debate from fear to facts. It demonstrated that fairness for cancer survivors and a sustainable insurance market could co-exist. I think Insurance Ireland, despite negative press, deserves credit for engaging constructively with the Department and the Minister of State throughout that process. The provisions of the Bill are extremely important and we cannot take our eye off the insurance industry. They have to follow this Bill to the letter of the law. The legislation will place the right to be forgotten on a statutory footing for the first time in Ireland. That is hugely significant because voluntary arrangements do not have the same rights and legal status. Cancer survivors deserve certainty and the legislation reduces the remission period from seven years to five years.”
“At the beginning, stakeholders like Insurance Ireland were understandably very concerned, especially around underwriting, sustainability and risk, but one of the key moments in this process was the review of the voluntary code introduced by Insurance Ireland in late 2023 after our initial Bill in the Seanad. That review demonstrated something very important. It showed that many of the fears surrounding the right to be forgotten were not borne out by the evidence. The independent review found that approximately 1,300 applications had been made under the voluntary code and approximately 650 people received cover amounting to €96 million in insured loans. Most important, the review found no evidence that anybody who met the code criteria had been refused cover because of their cancer diagnosis. This evidence changed the conversation.”
“To use a sporting analogy, you need somebody to put the ball in the back of the net. The Minister of State played that role impeccably and I thank him. He engaged seriously with stakeholders, insurers, patient advocates and officials, and he has worked tirelessly and constructively to ensure this legislation progressed to this stage. Hopefully we will see it at committee next week and see it progress before the term ends. I think it is also important to acknowledge the stakeholder engagement process because it genuinely improved the legislation.”
“It helped expose the scale of the problem and helped drive political momentum behind this legislation. I also want to thank Commissioner Michael McGrath, the former Minister for Finance, who was supportive in the early years in constructive engagement very early on with the insurance industry. I want to thank Michael J. McGrath in the Department of Finance, the civil servant who worked extensively on this legislation. I also want to thank Paschal Donohoe, Simon Harris and all the officials in the Department of Finance who worked carefully and diligently on this legislation over a long period of time. I particularly want to thank the Minister of State, Deputy Robert Troy. Sometimes in politics people begin ideas and sustain ideas, and sometimes you need somebody to bring legislation decisively over the line.”
“I want to acknowledge Adrian O'Higgins BL, who drafted the original legislation and gave enormously of his time and expertise in this process. I particularly want to acknowledge Rachel Morrogh, CEO of the Rape Crisis Centre, who at the time was head of advocacy and public affairs with the Irish Cancer Society and was one of the driving forces behind this legislation. I also want to acknowledge Steve Dempsey, Nikki Gallagher and former CEO Averil Power, together with the wider Irish Cancer Society team, for their continued engagement and leadership throughout this process. Research from the Irish Cancer Society showed that almost a one quarter of people affected by cancer had difficulty even getting financial quotes after their cancer diagnosis. That research really mattered.”
“I want to say very clearly that this Bill does not belong to one individual or one political party; it belongs to a community. There is an old saying that it takes a village. In this case it took a community of survivors, advocates, doctors, lawyers, insurers, civil servants and politicians like the Minister of State to bring this legislation to where it is tonight. Every single person involved played a role in getting it here and many people spent countless hours over several years advocating for this legislation because they genuinely believed cancer survivors deserved better. I want to acknowledge Professor Mark Lawler and Ciarán Briscoe for their work at the All-Island Cancer Research Institute.”
“They have fought the hardest battle of their lives yet years later, when they apply for mortgage protection insurance, many are still being treated differently because of their historic cancer diagnosis. It is simply not fair. A cancer diagnosis should not be a lifelong sentence and this legislation remedies that. I am very proud to say that I first introduced this legislation in the Seanad in 2022 alongside the then Senators, Deputy Jerry Buttimer and Paul Gavan of Sinn Féin, with broad cross-party support through the Oireachtas cross-party group on cancer. Later in the Dáil, Deputy Erin McGreehan and I introduced the Central Bank (Amendment) Bill during one of the first terms of this Dáil. That is the basis of the legislation that is before us this evening.”