Frances Black
Industrial and Commercial Panel · Independent · Ireland
“If we lost, however, under the European Communities Act 1973 we could simply repeal that aspect of the legislation and maintain the goods ban, so there is absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. This is the approach Spain has taken.”
“By exempting these flows from the Bill, the Government is implementing a trade ban that deliberately omits the vast majority of Irish trade. It is consciously letting large companies providing tech, IT and other service-based trade off the hook. To me, that is a tragedy.”
“It was already the legal position of the Government of Ireland that we must ban trade with settlements. Of course, nothing changed in this period in EU law either. The EU treaties are unchanged.”
“It is intended to stay like that up until such point that a full ban is agreed at EU level, which as we know may never arrive. My colleague, Senator Higgins, will speak more on this aspect later. These obligations regarding services existed long before the ICJ advisory opinion in 2024.”
“I could not do any of it without all of those people I mentioned - I hope I have not forgotten somebody. My husband who is here has also been my rock, as has my family. It is the activists but it is also the Palestinian people who we are all here for. We cannot stop this work. We have to keep going. We have to never give up.”
“I will take a minute, if that is okay. I know everybody is anxious to see the match but I feel it is imperative I thank the people I have been working with for the last eight years who have stood by me.”
The complete record
Every one of 496 lines we hold for Frances Black, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 10.
“The point I made is that the Minister of State quoted the so-called safeguards from the Canada trade deal or other previous agreements but the legislation before the House is not limited to Canada or Vietnam or Mexico. It will open up investor courts for any future trade deal with any country in the world, with or without those safeguards, by simple ministerial order - no primary legislation or real debate needed. That is a fact. Second, the key point the Minister of State did not address in his response is who will actually interpret those so-called safeguards. Who will do that? It will not be Irish courts with public judgments and years of case law; it will be investor courts. The words can be as nice as you like, but it matters who interprets the public interest, and that is what is substantially different.”
“This is most evident in climate protection, nature restoration, protection of habitats, water quality and even biodiversity. The Irish Government should reject this race to the bottom and accept the amendments. Our trade policy should be conducted in a manner that respects the standards of the Paris Agreement. That is the simple principle we would like to see inserted into the legislation.”
“29 and 30 deal with climate. I want to speak briefly in support of them. Across Europe and here in Ireland, we are witnessing a dangerous and rapid row-back on climate commitments. The essential driving force behind this is a short-sighted focus on so-called competitiveness above all other social and policy objectives, including human rights, development and climate. At EU level, a long list of so-called omnibus proposals is being used to shred protections for citizens across a range of areas. The row-back is misleading and is presented as mere simplification to make life easier for most businesses, which, no doubt, the vast majority of us would support. In reality, however, it is an effort by large powerful corporate actors to seize on the current global instability to undo years of work and reduce hard-won standards.”
“In the meantime, by contrast to that terrible delay, we see this legislation being rushed through the Houses at breakneck pace in time for the visit of the Prime Minister of Canada. There is no doubt that this legislation will make it harder for Ireland to take progressive measures in the public interest and in compliance with international law, including forcing multinational companies, some of them no doubt Canadian, that are trading with and supporting illegal settlements, to stop doing so. If we finally deliver on our obligations and stop those companies profiting from a brutal and oppressive occupation, they will be able to head to an investor court and seek compensation. How is this something that we are even considering? The amendment seeks to protect against that prospect, and the Government should accept it. Amendments Nos.”
“It set out clear obligations for all UN member states that have been shamefully ignored and largely forgotten in the 20 years since. In 2024, the ICJ tried again in this regard at the request of the UN General Assembly. It looked at the situation in Palestine and found unequivocally that not only is the occupation illegal and not only are the settlements built on stolen Palestinian land legal but that all countries, including Ireland, are required not to provide any economic trade to support them. As of this morning there are two countries, Spain and Slovenia, that are only even partly complying with the international law obligations set out by the ICJ. That is absolutely shameful. The Irish Government continues to make promises and delays legislation by adopting, in the spirit of St. Augustine, a "make me chaste but not yet" approach.”
“We are walking into a scenario where some of the most powerful and ruthless private companies in the world will be able to seek damages in respect of their potential profits when we try to legislate in the obvious public interest. If the ECT is wrong for Ireland, the investor court system devised here is also wrong, and I fully oppose it. Amendment No. 24 makes specific reference to the opinions and findings of the ICJ. I am particularly interested in this in light of my years of work on the occupied territories Bill and my ongoing fight to force the Government to comply with the findings of the ICJ. Incredibly, we are not there yet. In 2003, the ICJ delivered a landmark advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of an apartheid wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.”
“At a time when we need to be doing everything possible to decarbonise our economy and our society and get away from fossil fuels, a private company is seeking to force us to do the opposite or to compensate it handsomely. The claim may amount to US$100 million. Incredibly, Lansdowne claims that Ireland leaving the ECT is immaterial because of a 20-year sunset clause. Even if we leave, we are still on the hook for two decades. That is the kind of system we are operating in, even when we choose to leave it. There are also at least three other notices of intention disputes, effectively threats, from other companies under the ECT. When the ECT was agreed, the climate and corporate accountability organisation which raised this prospect was dismissed as engaging in scaremongering. The same argument is being made today.”
“In all likelihood, if these amendments are rejected by the Government, we will need to wait another ten or 20 years to see what happens, watching the cases mount up and, perhaps, watching another round of rebranding of these courts after the damage has been done. What I said about the energy charter treaty is not abstract; it is already happening. This month, Lansdowne Oil and Gas, a UK-based investor in an Irish offshore oil and gas field, and its Irish subsidiary lodged an ECT claim against Ireland. The case ultimately relates to a refusal by the Department of the environment to grant this company a licence to drill at the Barryroe oil and gas field in the north Celtic Sea.”
“Recently, a court in the Netherlands allowed the enforcement of an award against Spain in respect of an ECT claim by Eurus Energy in which the investor seized a property in Utrecht valued at around €10 million that will be sold through public auction if Spain does not pay the award. This is the kind of activity that is happening under existing systems. Ultimately, the Government is insisting that this is a new and fundamentally different system from those that have gone before and from the energy charter treaty which we are supposedly trying to leave and under which cases are allegedly being launched against Ireland. Those with decades of experience of these kinds of international corporate trade disputes have set out in great detail why they do not accept this distinction.”
“There is no requirement for investors to attempt to have their awards enforced in Ireland. Similarly, there have been numerous instances where a state has refused to pay an award but where the investor has successfully enforced the award through the threat of extraterritorial enforcement. This has included the seizure of assets of respondent states outside respondent states' borders. Investors have sought to and been successful in enforcing claims in countries other than the respondent state and sought compensation through the seizure of the assets of a respondent state in a third state. This has included the seizing of aircraft in Tanzania, state cultural and language institutes in Spain and bank accounts.”
“This means, in effect, that investors using ICS can choose to enforce an award in any of over 170 contracting states or to use ICSID enforcement rules in 158 member countries. These states are required to enforce judgments within their territories as if they are the final judgments of their own national courts. Much has been said about review mechanisms. A review mechanism in the Irish courts only works if the investor chooses to enforce in Ireland alone, which, realistically, no claimant would do if it is expected that the Irish system, considering the public interest or other policy goals, would be hostile to an award that could be achieved elsewhere. ISDS awards can be enforced almost anywhere. There would be no obligation to consider Irish laws in the context of an award enforced outside of Ireland.”
“This question of interpretation has been completely ignored by the Government in its answers to date. The Government repeatedly claimed that the ICS was a totally different mechanism than the pre-existing and much-criticised ISDS system. I categorically reject this false distinction. It reminds me of the promises made and alleged safeguards proposed when the ICS was initially brought in many years before the court cases started arising and public budgets started being hit. The ICS regime ultimately maintains many of the same procedural rules as ISDS, including the use of International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID, and UN Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL, arbitration rules. It relies on the existing enforcement regime for ISDS awards, including the ICSID and New York conventions.”
“Even if you accept the Government's argument, which I absolutely do not, that this paragraph is wonderful and sufficient to protect the public interest, it misses the key point: no matter how good the text is, it will ultimately not be up to judges in an Irish court to interpret it. It will be read by a non-transparent corporate court. You can insert the nicest language in the world into CETA or any other trade deal, but what matters is who will actually read and uphold it. The reason we are fighting to insert the High Court back into this process is that we can be reasonably confident, based on years of actual case law and transparent public judgments, as to how our courts will interpret the public interest, but this is simply and categorically not true for private investor courts. We do not know how they see it.”
“First, it also applies to a trade agreement with Chile and, second and more concerningly, it will empower the Government to agree to investor courts for any future trade agreement with any country in the world by simple ministerial order. With no primary legislation and no substantial debate in these Houses, it is absolutely misleading and, frankly, dishonest for the Government to cite this Canada-specific text as a supposed safeguard in the context of legislation that applies anywhere in the world. Of more importance is the question of who will actually read and interpret this supposed safeguard text.”
“In response, the Government repeatedly cites the following section of the joint interpretative instrument on CETA: CETA preserves the ability of the European Union and its Member States and Canada to adopt and apply their own laws and regulations that regulate economic activity in the public interest, to achieve legitimate public policy objectives such as the protection and promotion of public health, social services, public education, safety, the environment, public morals, social or consumer protection, privacy and data protection and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity. There are two problems with this answer. First, the answer relates entirely to Canada. The text the Minister of State cites is from CETA, but the legislation before us goes much further.”
“I want to make a few general points relevant to this section and the purpose of this Bill. I fully agree with the comments of Senators McDowell, Stephenson and Harmon. The role of the Irish courts is being shamefully diluted through this legislation, and I honestly have not heard one single good reason for that. Throughout this entire debate, the Opposition, civil society organisations and expert networks like the Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights have raised the very chilling effect that ISDS, ICS and similar investor court systems have on our capacity as parliamentarians to legislate in the public interest. This is not an imagined threat but is already happening in many jurisdictions around the world, be that in public health, housing, climate or other areas.”
“This week's events make the case for this legislation more powerfully than any speech ever could. The people who have waited eight years, and the people of Gaza who have waited longer, deserve a straight answer. When will this Government honour the commitment that was made? The conscience of this nation demands more than condemnation. We need serious action now.”
“We cannot keep looking away from what is happening in Palestine. I call on the Government to use every lever possible - diplomatic and legal - at EU level to demand the immediate and safe release of all Irish citizens who were detained this week. I call on the FAI, backed by our Government, to find the moral courage to do what 93% of its members have asked. We cannot condemn the detention of our citizens this week and then welcome their captors' national team to Dublin in October. I ask the Acting Leader to be very clear and to get a specific timeline on the occupied territories Bill. This Bill was promised in the programme for Government, had already passed many Stages and has legal backing and broad public support. I am travelling the length and breadth of this country doing packed-out public meetings.”
“Words without action are just not enough any more. In the same week, we are being asked to host Israel at the Aviva Stadium in October. In the past 30 months, 565 Palestinian footballers have been killed in Gaza. Some 76% of Irish football supporters are opposed to this match, while 93% of FAI members voted to give their board a mandate to press UEFA to suspend Israel. That mandate has been ignored. It is outrageous. Roberto Lopes, captain of Shamrock Rovers, put it very simply: “Ireland has an opportunity here to lead — to be a pioneer and do what others won’t. [...] Please, stop the game." I would like to think everybody in this Chamber would support that call. Ireland has always understood what it means to be a small nation watching a more powerful force act with impunity. We know what it means when the world looks away.”
“This week, Irish citizens on a flotilla sailing in international waters were detained. I know one of them personally, namely Dr. Margaret Connolly, a GP and a woman of conscience. She was among at least 11 Irish citizens detained by Israeli forces after the Global Sumud Flotilla was intercepted in international waters, 70 nautical miles off Cyprus. Before her vessel was boarded, she recorded a video message in which she said, "If you are watching this video, it means I have been kidnapped from my boat in the flotilla by the Israeli occupying forces ...". Those words should stop us in our tracks. The Taoiseach stated that what happened is wrong and unacceptable. Absolutely, it is wrong. It is piracy; that is what it is. He has said this before. He has condemned before and still it keeps happening.”
“The cost is paid in litigation, in Fiosrú investigations and in the erosion of trust between An Garda Síochána and minorities, such as the Traveller community. Accountability data does not cost money. It actually saves it. Ireland has binding obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and under EU equality law, so we cannot hide behind a procedural ruling to avoid discharging these obligations. The cost to the Exchequer mechanism exists to prevent Private Members from raiding the public purse. It was never intended and should never be used to block an accountability and human rights measure like this one. I ask that the Minister reconsider this ruling. This amendment should be accepted today. I really do hope the Minister changes his mind on this.”
“The idea that adding a field to an existing Garda recording system constitutes a charge on the Exchequer stretches that concept beyond any reasonable interpretation. I would argue that it is being used here not to protect public finances but to avoid the debate the Government does not want to have. As others have said, the PSNI records ethnicity in stop and search. It is a standard practice across these islands and across Europe. If it is good enough for policing in the North, it should be good enough here. We already collect equality monitoring data across health, housing and employment. The courts record ethnicity. The State does this routinely. None of this has been ruled a cost to the Exchequer. The cost of not collecting this data is far greater.”
“I agree with Senator McDowell. We have to challenge the ruling that this amendment is out of order on financial grounds. I think the Minister is saying that this needs a money message. That is wrong and I will say a little on the reason I think it is wrong. This amendment does not appropriate funds. It does not create a scheme, establish an entitlement or set up a new body. It imposes a recording obligation on an existing power. Gardaí already stop and search. All this amendment asks is that when they do, they note the ethnicity. I know my colleague Senator Ruane has an amendment about the locality of the person who is stopped. It is a data field. It is a check-box. That is all it is.”
“It indicated that it is incumbent on Israel to comply with its obligations under the United Nations Charter. Those orders, unfortunately, have not been complied with. I really feel like Ireland's credibility as a voice for small nations and occupied peoples rests on consistency. The moment we begin carving out expectations based on which country is doing the breaching, we surrender the moral authority that gives Irish advocacy its force internationally. This amendment ensures our arms embargo is principle-led, not case by case. It says that Ireland will not be a conduit for weaponry to any state found by the highest international courts to have violated its obligations. It is not really a radical position; it is the logical consequence of taking international law seriously.”
“We are at a moment where the international rules-based order is under profound strain. The ICJ has issued clear findings, as my colleague has said. The UN Charter has been breached. If our legislation responds only to the specific and the named while ignoring the systemic, we are not upholding international law, we are selectively applying it. Selective application is not a principle; it is politics dressed up as law. The International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world, has found it plausible that rights protected under the Genocide Convention have been violated and has issued multiple orders of provisional measures. The court found it had legal standing to hear the case and determined that South Africa's claims were plausible.”
“Independent peer reviewed research that was published in The Lancet estimates over 75,000 violent deaths, with scholars noting that official figures represent a floor as opposed to a ceiling because the very infrastructure needed to document death has been destroyed. UN Women reported just this week that more than 38,000 women and girls were killed between October 2023 and December 2025. That is an average of 47 women and girls every day, which is outrageous. That is why getting this right is exactly what Report Stage is for. Accordingly, I absolutely support and commend these amendments.”
“Obviously, I support these amendments. We all know that the technical precision in legislation of this kind is obviously not a minor matter. It is the difference between a law that holds and one that can be undermined on procedural grounds. When we are dealing with an arms embargo, the question of who can authorise or inspect and enforce is absolutely foundational. Vague or inconsistent definitions create gaps that can be exploited, whether by design or by default. This Bill is very important because of what is happening today to the people of Gaza and the West Bank. As of this week, the death toll from the Israeli assault on Gaza since 7 October 2023 has surpassed 72,000. That is a very conservative figure.”
“However, as we have alluded to with our other amendments, we fundamentally believe minors should never be detained under this Bill.”
“Both have stated that children should not be detained for any immigration-related reasons and detention is never in the best interest of the child. Our amendment provides that families will not be separated and they should be accommodated in appropriate accommodation. Less coercive alternative measures to detention are not defined in this section, so our amendment No. 54 seeks to do that by defining it as a regular reporting to an authority, the submission of a financial deposit or the requirement to stay in an assigned place. Amendment No. 55 provides that applicants with special reception needs shall not be detained if it puts their physical and mental health at risk. If they are detained, they should be provided with ongoing support.”
“These are highly vulnerable groups that include minors, persons with disabilities and persons with mental illnesses, including post-traumatic stress disorder. The circumstances of their behaviour need to be fully considered in the context of their special reception needs, especially if it might result in arrest and detention. Amendment No. 48 deletes three subsections, which provide for the detention of unaccompanied children, and will replace them with a provision that explicitly prohibits the detention of children. Children should not be detained under this Bill. It is regrettable that there are several provisions that allow for their detention. Even if it is considered a measure of last resort, this goes against the recommendations of the Ombudsman for Children and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.”
“Currently, the Bill allows for a person to be detained in a car for up to 12 hours, which is a completely disproportionate length of time for someone to be detained in a vehicle. It would be useful if the Minister would share his logic on this provision. Our amendment would ensure there would be some sense of proportionality to the duration of time someone might be detained in these circumstances. Amendment No. 46 ensures that an applicant with special reception needs is not criminalised for behaving in a manner likely to endanger the applicant's safety or the safety of others when a garda or immigration officer is arresting and detaining someone to take them to a screening centre, or obstruct or hinder them while they are performing those functions. There need to be explicit exceptions laid out for people with special reception needs.”
“Facial recognition is less accurate in identifying people with darker skin tones, especially women, due to inherent biases on the material used to train facial recognition software, with some software showing misidentification rates being 34% higher among darker skinned females than lighter skinned males. There are several high-profile cases of individuals being falsely identified by live facial recognition software used by the Metropolitan Police, for example. We need to ensure that such automatic misidentification does not happen here. Amendment No. 45 seeks to prevent people from being detained in a vehicle longer than the time it takes to transfer that person to a screening centre.”
“A study done by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the United States showed that African American and Asian faces were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than white faces and the highest false positive rate was among Native Americans. Similar research conducted by the University of Essex in the UK showed that the technology tested was accurate in just 19% of cases. Various studies on the use of facial recognition in policing in the USA, Canada and the UK have found that facial recognition systems misidentify black faces at a very high rate.”
“Currently, it is unclear how facial image data will be used, but in this section a person may be detained for the purposes of identifying them. This provision aims to ensure that the use of facial image data does not motivate these decisions. Organisations such as Amnesty International and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have previously and consistently raised concerns about the risks associated with the use of biometric data and facial recognition in law enforcement, notably in relation to the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Act 2023 introduced by the previous Government.”
“Moving to our own amendments in this grouping, amendment No. 40 ensures that people cannot be arrested without a warrant under this section, and the discretionary powers granted to immigration officers and gardaí under this Bill are highly concerning. We do not believe that they should be detaining and arresting people without a warrant. My other colleagues have spoken about concerns of misidentification leading to detention, and this provision seeks to avoid those types of outcomes. Similarly, amendment No. 56 requires a court order for the detention of applicants, which is currently not required. Amendment No. 57 allows a person recourse to judicial review in the event of their detention under this section. Amendment No. 42 is inserted to ensure that facial image data is not used for the purposes of identifying a person under this Part.”
“First I want to speak about a concern I have about Government amendment No. 37 which outlines the obligation of an immigration officer or a garda to inform an applicant being directed to a screening centre of their obligations under the Bill and the fact that their refusal to follow such a direction would constitute an implicit withdrawal from the asylum process. However, it does not contain any provision that such information would be provided to the applicant in a language that they can reasonably be expected to understand, as is included in other parts of the Bill. It would seem entirely unfair if applicants were withdrawn from being able to apply for international protection based on information they have received which they do not understand. I hope the Minister might consider this amendment.”
“Some consideration has to be given to that number, bearing in mind that some of those minors are coming from war-torn countries and might have serious trauma issues. We submitted an amendment to section 47, which was ruled out of order for reasons of cost to the Exchequer, that sought to add functions that a representative person would have in the event that they were in contact with a child who had been trafficked. It would be useful to understand the Minister's reasoning for not including such provisions as this seems like a really sensible place to create a connection between our international protection system and the national referral mechanism.”
“The Minister is very welcome to the House. I want to talk about amendment No. 116, which replaces a section that outlines a huge range of duties that representatives for minors have. It is obviously welcome that it covers a wide range of responsibilities such as helping them through the screening process, meeting with the minor personally, taking into account their views and helping them to provide biometric data, lodge an application and prepare for an interview. It is concerning that the Bill allows for an individual to represent 30 minors at once. It seems entirely unrealistic that a single person could provide this level of attention to 30 minors at once while also being able to recognise and take care of their individual circumstances and needs.”
“She always made us laugh. Our President said of Dolores, "a voice like hers does not leave us, it moves into the air and lives forever". Rest now, Dolores, in the music that you always carried. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a hanam dílis.”
“Many years ago, when I was a teenager, I used to listen to De Dannan and Dolores Keane and all her songs. I learned off all her songs. Little did I think that I would be singing onstage with her many years later on "A Woman's Heart". I used to stand at the side of the stage and be in awe of her and how she could bring this beautiful soulful voice. The whole place would come alive. She uplifted the audience and they all loved her dearly. My sister, Mary, was a very close friend of Dolores. I want to share a quote that Mary put up after Dolores passed away. She said: Dearest Dolly, we had great times together on the road with De Dannan all those years ago - two mothers missing our babies. You'd prop me up and I'd prop you up. A strong bond that lasted a lifetime. And we laughed - boy, did we laugh! That was Dolores.”
“Even though family members do not take a substance or act out an addictive behaviour, they need their own separate recovery to deal with the trauma of watching somebody you love going down the route of self-destruction. It is soul-destroying and heartbreaking. I am delighted they are before the committee and want to put that on the record. Perhaps when the drugs strategy comes out, we can have a debate on it and ask the Minister to come to the House and give us an update. I want to pay tribute today to a really good friend of mine who had the most beautiful and soulful voice in Ireland, namely, Dolores Keane. We will all miss her deeply. Just saying her name brings music to mind. She came from Caherlistrane in County Galway. She was the voice that carried the soul not only of the west of Ireland but of the whole of Ireland.”
“I am delighted to hear that representatives of Family Addiction Recovery Ireland, FARI, are before the Joint Committee on Drugs Use today. It is an unbelievably brilliant organisation. It is the umbrella organisation for family members who have somebody they love with an alcohol, drug or gambling problem. I am sorry that I will not get over to Buswells Hotel for the press conference because I will be in the Chamber. The work FARI does is fantastic. I want to put that on the record. We must take into consideration, particularly for the drugs strategy, the impact on families. We all know that addiction is soul-destroying not only for the individual but also for the whole family. The whole family need their own separate recovery. That is what is really important.”
“We must be honest about the scale of what is required and bring humanity back into our classrooms and into our policies. We owe it to children with additional needs, to people with disabilities and to their families to build an education system that is truly inclusive, where every child has the support needed to participate, learn and thrive.”
“This is a moment, a genuine opportunity to step back, listen and reset. I believe we have the capacity to do that now. What we need is not tinkering at the edges but fundamental reimagining of how we educate children and how we treat people with disabilities. We need to move with real commitment towards a model of inclusive education, one where no child is left behind, no child is sidelined and where our schools reflect the full, rich diversity of our society. That means starting from first principles, acknowledging the constitutional right of every child to an appropriate education and then building a properly resourced, properly supported and properly staffed system that delivers on that right. It means recognising that SNAs are not peripheral to the system; they are central to it.”
“However, these roles are fundamentally different in one critical respect. Teachers obviously deliver a curriculum. The difference is that SNAs build real relationships. It is the relationships, trust, understanding and the bond formed between an SNA and a child that makes everything else possible. Social and emotional regulation, which is the foundation of a child's ability to engage and learn, does not happen in a vacuum. It happens within that relationship. Take away that relationship and you take away the scaffolding that holds that child's school experience together. Any policy around redeployment must recognise this with care, sensitivity and nuance. This is not a numbers exercise. It really is about human connection. The Government must learn from what has gone wrong. Every misstep carries a lesson.”
“We will feel these consequences, and when we do, we will wish we had acted differently. Providing adequate SNA support is, as others have said, a constitutional obligation. Every child in the State has the right to an appropriate education. It is enshrined in our Constitution and it falls to the State to honour that right in full, not in part, and not when convenient but always. When we fail to meet the needs of our most vulnerable children, we are not just failing those children and their families. We are failing ourselves as a society. We are failing the very values we claim to hold. How we treat those who are most in need is the true measure of who we are. I want to speak for a moment on the nature of the SNA role. Sometimes it can be misunderstood. There has been discussion about redeployment and comparisons drawn with teachers.”
“Every day in schools throughout this island they walk through those doors and they make it possible for children with additional needs to participate, to learn and to belong. That is vital. It is everything. My concern is that the trust that SNAs, families and schools placed in this State has been deeply damaged. The decisions and actions taken by the Government and its agencies have left people feeling unheard, undervalued and genuinely worried about what comes next. Rebuilding that trust will not happen overnight. It will require consistent, sustained and meaningful engagement and genuine partnership with stakeholders. I want to be clear about what is at stake if we get this wrong. Reducing or removing SNA support is not a neutral administrative decision. It has huge consequences that ripple outwards for children and teachers.”
“I thank the Acting Chairperson. The Minister of State is welcome to the Chamber. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the topic of SNAs. What we are talking about is not policy or procedure but real children in real classrooms who depend on real people to help them to access their education and their futures. Special needs assistants are not a luxury and, as my colleague just said, they are not an optional extra that schools are fortunate to have. They are fundamental, essential and, in the truest sense of the word, irreplaceable members of our school communities. SNAs are advocates and champions for children who may not yet have the words or the means to advocate for themselves.”
“The debate shows that the Act of 2000 needs a wider review, and that is my ask today. I am looking for a commitment from the Minister of State, and I really hope she can consider this. Maybe we could have a chat about it. In particular, I am looking for a commitment to conduct a full review that will be completed in the lifespan of this Government, includes performer engagement and produces a published outcome. That would be fantastic. The Bill is fine, but we need a full review going forward. I hope the Minister of State can make that commitment today.”
“What is wrong with the functions of the controller of intellectual property that justifies moving those functions to the Circuit Court? Was the controller consulted in relation to this change? Was any assessment done on cost and access to justice for performers? Can the Minister of State point to any other EU countries that rely on the courts as a default route for dispute resolution? Throughout the progression of this Bill, I have asked for engagement with the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, but to date, none of the Ministers have engaged directly with me or RAAP. We need their engagement to be able to change the trajectory of this legislation, which is not fit for purpose and will fail to achieve the Government's stated aims. That will make an unfair and inequitable situation much worse.”