Gary Gannon
Dublin Central · Social Democrats · Ireland
“I will talk about that in a couple of minutes but before I do I want to come back to some of the things the Minister of State said in his opening speech, particularly the last paragraph.”
“It will create a scenario where vulnerable people will simply not be able to get up their street for potentially three days because there will be a multitude of different providers steaming up these streets, which were never created for such large vehicles.”
“Those things should not be in competition with each other. The remunicipalisation of waste is going to cost money. That is a simple fact, but public services often should operate at a loss.”
“He engaged with the evidence and with stakeholders and came to the same determination, namely, that what we have at present for waste management services, not only in Dublin but nationally, is no longer tolerable. It has led to a system that is clearly not efficient or not suitable for the purpose intended.”
“Does the Tánaiste recognise the scale of the chaos in our criminal justice system at the moment? Thousands of cases have been adjourned. Victims will await justice. Backlogs are building. We now have habeas corpus cases taking place in the High Court. The Minister referenced my flowery language.”
“I want to acknowledge Deputy Sherlock for her work in bringing forward this Bill. We in the Social Democrats will be supporting it. It is a shame that the Minister of State is not willing to engage further than to simply vote it down on the promise that a review will be released in an unspecified time.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,100 lines we hold for Gary Gannon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 22.
“We cannot have a scenario that when October comes, people will simply not be able to walk the streets in the Stoneybatter area If the Minister of State is not going to support Deputy Sherlock's Bill, maybe he can support an appeal from all of us to engage with the local authority about finding a solution that is much better than the one people are quite literally dreading at the moment. I thank the Ceann Comhairle so much for her work over the past year.”
“The commission updated its report in 2025 and stated, "The current market structure will never properly deliver for the Irish public. A policy change is long overdue. That is a competition authority saying there is no competition for the market. We all have to open our eyes to that. We probably do not need any more reviews. I appreciate that there is a review coming. I ask the Minister of State to engage with Dublin City Council on something more urgent. The derogation relating to rubbish bags will end in October. The ending of the derogation has been delayed for three months as a result of the advocacy of councillors at local level.”
“Those things should not be in competition with each other. The remunicipalisation of waste is going to cost money. That is a simple fact, but public services often should operate at a loss. We have created a scenario where large-scale private operators are generating an absolute fortune for themselves but where the payback for the community is a service that often does not meet the standard envisaged. We simply cannot continue along those lines. There is a lot in this Bill that I will be supporting, but we need action that happen quickly rather than being obliged to wait for a review that will released after an unspecified period. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission released a report in 2018, which highlighted Dublin as an outlier in terms of having absolutely no control over its waste.”
“It will create a scenario where vulnerable people will simply not be able to get up their street for potentially three days because there will be a multitude of different providers steaming up these streets, which were never created for such large vehicles. This will mean that people simply will not be able to get through their locality easily. That is not an assumption. It will shortly be the lived reality for people in Dublin 7 as a result of the removal of the derogation relating to plastic bags. I can see the logic of that up to a point. We have a scenario where seagulls and foxes are tearing at these bags. Rubbish is being strewn along the street and that cannot continue. However, the solution is not to remove the means by which a person can simply walk, use their wheelchair or push a pram down the street.”
“He engaged with the evidence and with stakeholders and came to the same determination, namely, that what we have at present for waste management services, not only in Dublin but nationally, is no longer tolerable. It has led to a system that is clearly not efficient or not suitable for the purpose intended. We need reform on a scale much broader than even what we are talking about today. There should be a process of the remunicipalisation of waste management. That is not an assumption. Nor is it an assumption to say that streets such as the ones I represent in Stoneybatter have narrow pathways. If they remove the capacity to leave out a bag and introduce a requirement to put out a wheelie bin instead, I will not be able to get a pram or a wheelchair past.”
“I will talk about that in a couple of minutes but before I do I want to come back to some of the things the Minister of State said in his opening speech, particularly the last paragraph. The Minister of State said: Instead, we will continue to pursue evidence-led reform informed by independent analysis, stakeholder engagement and the updated waste action plan for the circular economy, so that any future changes to Ireland's waste collection systems are based, not on assumption but on evidence and delivers lasting benefits for households, communities and the environment. Does the Minister of State consider the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission to be an independent body that uses evidence to come to its conclusions? The Dublin city task force was commissioned by Simon Harris and was chaired by David McRedmond from An Post.”
“I want to acknowledge Deputy Sherlock for her work in bringing forward this Bill. We in the Social Democrats will be supporting it. It is a shame that the Minister of State is not willing to engage further than to simply vote it down on the promise that a review will be released in an unspecified time. As somebody who believes in local government and local elected representatives, I want to acknowledge those in Dublin Central and the north inner city and Dublin 7 who do tireless work to advocate on behalf of the residents, many of whom are here today. That is why we are here and what is motivating us to come in here is the removal of the derogation for bags.”
“The Government offered no analysis by which the decision was made. In recognition of the chaos in our courts, can the Tánaiste, as Minister for Finance and leader of Fine Gael, simply say he is willing to engage in a manner that the Minister is not?”
“Does the Tánaiste recognise the scale of the chaos in our criminal justice system at the moment? Thousands of cases have been adjourned. Victims will await justice. Backlogs are building. We now have habeas corpus cases taking place in the High Court. The Minister referenced my flowery language. I am surprised that Fine Gael is giving the Minister for justice such free rein in relation to the chaos he has caused. Prior to taking up the position, the Minister was critical of Fine Gael's handling of the justice system for the preceding 14 years. We now have criminal courts coming to a standstill and all the Government offers is soundbites. I am not talking about the Tánaiste's soundbites.”
“We are into our third hour discussing issues in relation to District Court and Circuit Court without even mentioning that there is chaos reigning as we speak. I will support this Bill.”
“I do not believe for a second it is good practice. Within this Bill there are issues pertaining to the use of pepper spray and incapacitant spray in prisons. It is an area I feel deeply passionate about. I did not get any chance to really scrutinise those aspects of this Bill on any of the Stages. There is the issue of aid to civil powers which was quite bizarre when it was brought to the justice committee with the Minister for Defence there. I appreciate the Minister is in a hurry but his hurry should not disregard parliamentary norms and the idea of scrutiny. There are many great aspects in this Bill, which I will vote for, but we should not do business like this. A lot of things are going on.”
“A couple of weeks back in this Chamber, when discussing the previous Stage of this Bill, I looked up the Gallery. In the Gallery there were campaigners who campaigned for decades, some of whom were friends of mine, for the removal of historical convictions for gay men. In another part of the Gallery were women who had to come before a committee and relive their trauma and ask for change when it comes to the use of counselling notes in rape cases. I do not believe it is good practice. I understand the concept of a miscellaneous Bill but where there are issues of such unimaginable importance being discussed in the same legislation, it creates confusion. The confusion for us is immaterial but that does not matter. We can catch up but for advocacy groups and campaigners, it leaves them in a very different situation.”
“I move amendment No. 14: In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(14) The Minister shall, not later than 3 years after the commencement of this section, conduct a review of the operation of the Register and lay a report of that review before each House of the Oireachtas, including anonymised information on the operation of the Register, applications for removal and the offences recorded.”.”. This amendment would introduce a statutory review of the register after three years. The domestic violence judgments register will be a new scheme. It is only right that the Oireachtas should have the opportunity to assess whether it is working as intended. I am looking for a review after three years.”
“I disagree with the Minister completely. I think perpetrators of domestic violence are callous. If someone seriously assaults or abuses their partner's child, that behaviour is highly relevant to whether future partners should know about their history. Without this amendment, those convictions could fall outside the register simply because the victim was a child rather than an adult partner. The Minister is obviously not going to accept the amendment, but his is a flawed approach because I think this information is highly relevant to the type of register we are talking about here.”
“I move amendment No. 13: In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(c) is a dependant, including a child, of a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).”. This amendment recognises a simple reality. Domestic abuse often extends beyond an intimate partner to children and other dependants. As drafted, the Bill only protects victims who are the spouse, former spouse or intimate partner of the offender. Women's Aid identified this as a significant gap during pre-legislative scrutiny, noting that convictions for serious offences against a partner's child could fall outside of the register. This amendment addresses that omission by ensuring dependants, including children, are also covered. It better reflects the reality of domestic abuse and strengthens the protection purposes of the register.”
“I move amendment No. 11: In page 5, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(j) an offence under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 (harassment and stalking); (k) an offence under section 4 of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020; (l) an offence under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.”.”
“It is a completely separate issue and is an allowance for future deception. Five years is too short, to be honest, but three years certainly is.”
“I had not intended to speak but I fully support Deputy Carthy's amendment. When the Minister mentioned the possibility of rehabilitation, it raised my antennae because I am somebody who fundamentally believes in rehabilitation. We talk about it in this House all the time. I do not believe going onto this register is the punishment. Going onto this register is to send a warning to any potential partner in the future, which is why the rehabilitation of the perpetrator is not to the fore of my concerns here at all. In fact, more to the point, a person who is seeking to remove themselves after three years and potentially not having a conversation about such horrific past behaviour seems like an attempt to deceive. I think three years is far too short. I do not think rehabilitation comes into this register.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 4, lines 5 to 7, to delete all words from and including “it” in line 5 down to and including line 7 and substitute the following: “the court shall, after consultation with the family of the victim where appropriate, determine whether a judgment is to be included in the Register.”.”
“I will equally be supporting Deputy Carthy's amendments. My amendment seeks to recognise that, where a victim has tragically died, he or she can no longer express a view on whether a judgment should appear on the register. The Bill currently leaves that decision entirely to the court. Our amendment simply requires the court, where appropriate, to consult the victim's family before reaching that decision. It does not give families a veto, nor does it remove the court's discretion. It simply ensures that, in these most difficult cases, those closest to the victims have an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made.”
“1, which seeks to add the offences to which I refer. In terms of amendment No. 11, which I neglected to speak to earlier, what we are talking about are behaviours such as stalking and harassment. It would be important for those to be included. I again encourage the Minister to accept amendment No.1 in order to include the offences to which I refer.”
“I vehemently support this Bill, but we cannot ignore the fact that, as matters currently stand, there are cases involving coercive control, assault causing harm and breaches of protection orders that can come before the District Court and that can be prosecuted summarily or upon indictment. The despicable people who engage in such behaviour and who are found guilty in an Irish court will not feature on this register. Therefore, when the Minister talks about the safest way of advancing the legislation, I am obliged to ask for whom is it safest? Women's Aid has already told us that this is an omission from the Bill that will create exceptions whereby violent men will be excluded from appearing on registers. It is incumbent upon us to listen to Women's Aid. It would be safer still for the Minister to accept amendment No.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, line 24, to delete “convicted on indictment” and substitute “convicted, whether on indictment or summarily,”. I welcome Jennie's family. It is an honour for us to have you here. My amendment relates to section 1. This amendment is straightforward but important. As drafted, the Bill excludes convictions dealt with summarily in the District Court yet many domestic violence offences, including the offences of coercive control, assault causing harm and breaching a protection order, can be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment. Whether a case proceeds in one court or another should not determine whether a victim can benefit from the protections of this register. Women's Aid specifically highlighted this issue during pre-legislative scrutiny. This amendment seeks to address that gap.”
“It would be grossly hypocritical for me to come in here and present an argument that was not based on available data, albeit from the Irish Red Cross, in the absence of any from the Minister. To end this scheme now risks placing huge strain on an already overstretched emergency accommodation system, the homeless system and a rental market that is in chaos. All of these things are potentially what awaits us here because of the reduction in this payment. We understand the cost of living. People in this country are struggling to pay their ESB bills and to put food on the table. To reduce that fee by another €200 means we are simply expecting people to continue having people from Ukraine living in their homes. That is an expectation that is going to be too heavy for many. What we are doing here is reckless.”
“This is a scheme that has, at different times, paid €800, then €600 and now, potentially, €400 to people in homes. I have often come in here and lambasted the fact that we monetise poverty and oppression too often in this State. We transfer a huge amount of money to private operators who open up accommodation in office blocks or elsewhere for people in emergency situations. That is not a scenario I want. I believe there has to be a transition plan but I do not believe I can come in here and advocate against this without presenting what I would do differently. This system works. The only analysis we can rely on is from the Irish Red Cross, which has surveyed host families and people who avail of the accommodation recognition payment, and it has found that it works. It works in the communities in which people are placed.”
“Rent supplement remains extremely restrictive. The Irish Red Cross found that only 16% of those who applied for rent supplement were successful and only 20% of people who tried to access the private rental market managed to do so. They are astonishingly low figures, but they tell us something very important: that this is not a transition plan or a displacement plan. The Government cannot reduce one of the only accommodation schemes that is working while pretending that realistic alternatives already exist. This is a scheme that works. This is a scheme that has people in homes. One of the reasons I will continue to support this scheme is because I do not like to be hypocritical in how I present myself when I come into Dáil Éireann.”
“The Irish Red Cross also warns that 86% of hosts say that this payment is important for them to continue their hosting arrangements. If those arrangements collapse, we are potentially talking about 35,000 people looking for somewhere else to live, but any number of them is going to create strain on the system. We know what will happen next. People do not suddenly find affordable rental homes. They do not suddenly qualify for HAP. They do not suddenly move into social housing. They enter into an accommodation system that is already buckling under the weight of unprecedented demand. A simple question should be asked. Where exactly are those 35,000 people supposed to go? The alternatives very clearly do not exist. People under temporary protection cannot simply access HAP or homeless services in a way that many people assume.”
“The Irish Red Cross estimates that this scheme costs the State around €11 per person per night, compared with approximately €48 per night for full-board State accommodation or otherwise in private accommodation. That is not only the more humane option, but also the more cost-effective one, yet today we are debating a proposal that risks pulling the rug from underneath thousands of those families. The Irish Red Cross could not be clearer. It says that reducing this payment is likely to lead to a significant reduction in the number of people willing to continue hosting. In fact, since the Government made this cut, the Red Cross said it had already seen an increase in hosting arrangements coming to an end. This is not theoretical any more.”
“People who had fled war arrived carrying trauma and they slowly managed to rebuild some sense of normality. I remember one mother telling us that her daughter had arrived here as a toddler and she was now settled in school. She speaks with a little Dublin accent. That is no small thing, because that is what integration looks like. It is homes, communities, friendships and kids speaking with little Dublin accents. Hosted accommodation gives people something emergency accommodation never can. It gives people stability, continuity and dignity. It also makes financial sense. Hosted accommodation is dramatically cheaper than State-provided accommodation.”
“It is a rarity for me to come into the Chamber and acknowledge a Government scheme that works, but reducing it has the potential to have an impact that goes very significantly towards creating further hardships for people. Since it was introduced, it has accommodated more than 66,500 people fleeing the war in Ukraine. Today, over 41,000 people are living in more than 23,000 homes supported by this payment. Almost half of those living in Ireland under temporary protection are accommodated through this scheme. That is not a small programme. It is one of the central pillars of Ireland's humanitarian response. Only a few months ago, I hosted a briefing with the Irish Red Cross and I heard directly from people who have built lives here through hosted accommodation.”
“The Social Democrats will be opposing this motion and the amendment. The motion is not simply an administrative change, but a decision to reduce the accommodation recognition payment from €600 to €400 per month. I believe that is the wrong decision, not because this scheme should exist forever, but because reducing the payment now will make an already difficult situation significantly worse for people fleeing war, for hosts, for our housing system, and ultimately for all of us in the State. I spoke on this issue in the House last year when we debated the extension of the scheme and my view has not changed. This is a scheme that actually does work. It is one of the few parts of our response to the war in Ukraine that has genuinely delivered.”
“The greatest tribute we can pay to Jennifer Poole, her family and every survivor, victim and campaigner who has brought us to this point is not simply to pass this legislation but to make it as strong as we possibly can. I look forward to engaging constructively on the amendments on Committee Stage tomorrow.”
“Moving from an honest belief standard to a reasonable belief standard in rape law is an important and overdue development. Consent must be freely given and people have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to establish it. This is an important progression in our criminal law. I welcome the introduction of Operation Encompass to ensure schools can appropriately support children affected by domestic violence. I also welcome the measures implementing our international obligations on trafficking and violence against women. These are positive reforms that deserve and will get support. This legislation will not end domestic violence - no single Bill ever could - but it is another step towards a justice system that places victims and survivors at its centre rather than asking them to navigate systems that have too often failed them.”
“These behaviours are often part of the escalating pattern of coercive control that victims experience. Excluding them leaves an unnecessary gap in the protection. We also propose that children and dependents connected to the victim are explicitly recognised in the legislation. Domestic abuse rarely affects only one person in a household. Children experience its consequences too, and the legislation should recognise that reality. We propose a statutory review after three years. This is new legislation. We should be prepared to measure whether it is working, collect anonymised data, identify unintended consequences and improve it where necessary. That recommendation also came directly from the organisations that gave evidence to the committee. More broadly, I welcome the reforms in the Bill on sexual offences.”
“Coercive control, assault, stalking and other abusive behaviours are very often prosecuted before the District Court rather than on indictment. Limiting the register to indictable convictions risks excluding some of the most common patterns of abuse. Where a victim has tragically died or cannot express their wishes, we believe that the court should consult the victim's family where appropriate before deciding whether a judgment should appear on the register. This recommendation came directly from Jason Poole and Women's Aid and is a simple recognition that families deserve a voice in the circumstances. We believe additional offences should be included, particularly harassment and stalking, offences under Coco's Law and breaches of domestic violence orders.”
“Women's Aid made an important point to the committee to the effect that the absence of someone's name from the register does not mean that person has never been abusive. Many offenders will never appear as a result of offences being dealt with summarily because victims choose, understandably, not to consent, cases are never reported or convictions are never secured. If we do not acknowledge these limitations, we risk creating a false sense of security. That is why tomorrow I will propose a number of practical amendments that I believe will strengthen rather than alter the intent of the Bill. I want the register to capture the reality of domestic violence. That means ensuring that summary convictions can be included, where appropriate.”
“During pre-legislative scrutiny the justice committee heard directly from victims, families, survivors, organisations, legal experts and petitioners. They challenged the general scheme to identify weaknesses and they suggested improvements. That is exactly how pre-legislative scrutiny is supposed to work. Tomorrow's Committee Stage gives us the opportunity to reflect on much of that evidence in this final piece of worthy legislation. The establishment of a domestic violence register is an important step. For many people entering a relationship, knowledge can be protection. No register can eliminate risk. No register will prevent every tragedy, but if it helps one person recognise a danger they otherwise could not have known about, then it has the potential to save lives. At the same time, we have to be honest about its limitations.”
“Rather than withdrawing from public life, they chose to fight so that another family might be spared what they have had to endure. I was up in Ballygall recently, close to where Jennifer was from, and one would be hard pressed not to see a car or a shopfront with a sticker proudly backing Jennie's law. It is a testament to an extraordinary person and an extraordinary family who have changed this country for the better. I also acknowledge the tireless work of survivors of domestic abuse, Women's Aid, Safe Ireland and the many campaigners and advocates who have spent decades ensuring that domestic violence is recognised for what it is - not a private matter, but a profound abuse of power that demands a robust response from the State. This Bill is stronger because of their voices.”
“I begin by welcoming this Bill. It is a really significant piece of legislation strengthening our law on sexual offences, introducing Operation Encompass and, most important, establishing Ireland's first domestic violence register. For that reason, the Social Democrats will be supporting its progression. Before discussing the legislation itself, I want to acknowledge the people who make this day possible. In particular, I pay tribute to Jason Poole, Jennifer's entire family, and to everyone who has campaigned for what we now know across the country as Jennie's law. No family should ever have to channel unimaginable grief into years of legislative campaigning, yet they have done so with dignity, determination and generosity.”
“Their voices deserve to be heard because if today teaches us anything, it is that when survivors tell us what justice looks like, our first instinct must be to listen and act. The measure of today will not be in the words spoken in this Chamber; it will be in whether another child, another family or another survivor receives a different response from the institutions of this State when they come forward to tell their story. To every survivor I say, "Thank you". You carried the burden of truth while institutions and individuals within this State chose to burden themselves with protecting the reputation of a vile paedophile instead. History will remember which burden required the greater courage. Thank you to all of you.”
“The greatest failure revealed by this report is that too often institutions appeared more concerned with protecting the authority of this vile person than with protecting children. I have often spoken in this House about restorative justice, but the absolute antithesis of restorative justice is the re-traumatisation of victims. Every time survivors had to tell their story again, every delay you have experienced, every door that was closed upon you and every year spent fighting for an investigation that should have happened decades earlier was not justice; it was the opposite of it. It was another injury inflicted upon you. Today's apology is the State's acknowledgement that when you needed it most, it failed you. I note some survivors have said today's apology should not be the only one.”
“That was the State's responsibility; it was not yours. I have sat through and watched many State apologies from this Chamber and afar. Every commission of inquiry and every report into institutional failure begin with the same uncomfortable truth: someone, oftentimes many people, in the architecture of this State knew enough to act and chose not to. The failures in this case were not inevitable. The courage of children brought the opportunity to intervene, the opportunity to investigate and the opportunity to protect other children. Those opportunities were purposely discarded and the wrongs you suffered at the hands of an evil man were compounded by the complicity of this State in the indifference to his crimes.”
“Today belongs to the survivors, to those remarkable people sitting in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery and to those who simply could not or chose not to be here today. This apology belongs to all of you. It is impossible not to reflect on the enormity of what you had to endure, not just as children but also as adults. The abuse stole your childhood but the pursuit of justice took decades of your adult lives. You should never have had to become investigators of the crimes that were committed against you in the past. You should never have had to become campaigners for the dignity that should have been afforded to you from the moment you stepped forward. You should never have had to persuade the State to investigate the crimes that were committed against you by the evil paedophile, Bill Kenneally.”
“When you stand in the room and hear the stories from people, some of whom who have lost partners themselves, their abiding fear is what happens after they die. It is an extraordinary indictment of our Republic. This problem is not insurmountable. It requires resourcing, planning and not just listening, which I appreciate that the Minister has done, but immediacy of action. Tony and Susan's determination alongside their fellow campaigners in Before We Die should be an example to all of us, but we should not be back here in a year's time asking where the plan is. It should already be in motion. That is the minimum of what this motion expects of us. I thank Deputy Quaide for bringing this forward and for the diligence he has brought to this issue.”
“Our motion asks for something very reasonable: a proper national strategy, real planning, real accountability and homes built around the person, not around whatever space happens to become available. Families cannot continue to carry this burden alone. Disabled people and adults with intellectual disabilities should not have to wait for a crisis before the State decides they deserve somewhere to call home. Every Tuesday evening in the handball alley in Ballybough, families, parents and guardians of adults with intellectual disabilities join each other in company to share stories, to have support networks and a place for their adult children to be present with friends. I have visited and been invited on a couple of occasions.”
“That is not because the families have not planned. It is because the State has not. Instead of asking what life this person wants to live, we wait until a family reaches breaking point, until a parent dies, until there is a crisis, and then we ask a completely different question - "Where is the nearest vacant bed?". That is not planning. Every person with an intellectual disability is an individual with their own relationships, routines, friendships and communities. Their life cannot be reduced to whenever a vacancy happens to exist. They deserve a place where people will know their name, where family can visit without driving halfway across the country and where their friends are. That is what Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities promises. It is what far too many people in Ireland are still denied.”
“It is not just the fear of growing old, but a fear of what happens after they are gone. Imagine carrying that every single day, wondering who will care for your child, where they will live, and wondering if they will be uprooted from everything and everyone they know because no one in the State has thought to make a plan. Some parents have said they hope to outlive their own children because they have so little faith that the State will protect them. That is a devastating thing for any parent to have to say, and it should be a devastating thing for any Minister to have to hear. Our survey confirmed exactly what the Before We Die campaign has been telling us for years. A total of 86% of families told us there is no clear written plan for the future. Families describe themselves as worried, anxious, powerless, afraid and terrified.”
“I met Tony Murray, his wife, Susan, and their daughter, Aoife, when I was out canvassing, as everybody in this Chamber has had to do. It was extraordinary when I was knocking on their door asking them for a vote and they were asking what I would to contribute to the fact that their child may not have a place to live after they die. It was a conversation that will stay with me for as long as I remain in politics and afterward. I have watched Tony and Susan spend years carrying burdens that they should never have been forced to carry. They should never have to fight every single day, week or year just to get the State to recognise that their son or daughter deserves security, dignity and a future. Equally, thousands of families are living with a fear that no parent should ever have to.”
“Yesterday, I stood in the Chamber and talked about women being turned away from refuge spaces when they were fleeing violence. Today, we are back here again, talking, fighting and asking for something once more that citizens in this country should never have to go without. It is not just a safe home, but a place of sanctuary, a residence for some of the most vulnerable people in this State - adults with intellectual disabilities. That should never be a luxury. It should never be seen as an aspiration. It should just be a basic need that is met. It is an indictment of one of the wealthiest countries in the world that so often Opposition TDs spend so much of our time in this House pleading for the most basic rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I know many of the families behind the Before We Die campaign.”
“I have had three instances in my constituency this year where a woman made the brave decision to pursue a barring order against a partner from the home they were living in, in Dublin City Council accommodation. When the barring order ends, the perpetrator of the violence that had been inflicted to the point the victim was able to get a barring order is simply able to walk back into the home. I have tabled amendments to housing Bills to address this but it has gone unaddressed to this point. It cannot be the case that, continuously, women who are victims have to leave their homes.”