Laura Harmon
Industrial and Commercial Panel · Labour Party · Ireland
“There is not enough room for a wheelchair to go around the side of the building. There is no obvious proper entrance. The reception is upstairs. There is no lift access for anyone with mobility issues, buggies or deliveries. The classrooms are an irregular shape and are not the standard classroom size of 49 sq. m.”
“Her cause of death was recorded as “congenital debilities”. For many of those babies who died at Bessborough, the reason given for their death was congenital debility or marasmus, which was essentially starvation. The reason given for these babies’ deaths was often very vague.”
“I am speaking again about the issue of Bessborough in Cork city and to call once again on the Taoiseach to act on this. There is still time to do the right thing and to have a negotiation process with the developer now or, failing that, to look at compulsory purchase of this site. The burial records have been sealed in relation to this.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her response. Will she call for a meeting in person with the school? Could that be facilitated to give the school an update in person? Does she have an idea as to a commitment on the timeline?”
“Will the Minister of State provide an update on what has been done to progress the request for additional school accommodation for Coláiste Daibhéid in Cork city and a timeline for the project?”
“It reaches high standards academically as well as in sport, STEM and stewardship. It has fantastic students and they deserve better. At present, the school is on the edge of Douglas Street Campus on Sawmill Street. There are two buildings. One is Buckingham House, which dates from the mid-19th century.”
The complete record
Every one of 678 lines we hold for Laura Harmon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 14.
“Spain has taken further actions on services and advertising, in particular, so there is no reason Ireland cannot be stronger. Similarly, we sanctioned Russia when it occupied parts of Ukraine in 2014. Can that not be applied now to Israeli services following its occupation? The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has said very clearly that there is no legal basis for excluding services. These are legal experts who are telling us that there is no legal basis there. The Attorney General's is one perspective. There are many other legal perspectives saying that it can absolutely be done. This proposal is not without meaning, but certainly falls far short of what we need and what the people of Palestine need. This has been going on for too long. I am dismayed hearing what the Government side has said in the Chamber.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. This is a moment that requires courage and political leadership from the Government. When we look to the past and see moments where people took stands, we note it was because they had courage in the moment. It is not something that can be applied retrospectively. I commend Senator Frances Black on introducing the occupied territories Bill initially. I acknowledge Mr. Conor O'Neill, who was in the Gallery, for the work he has done in relation to this. Where do we even start? The Minister is on the record during the Committee Stage debate on 23 June as saying it was clear that this legislation would amount to partial compliance and that we would have to work more at a European level to ensure full compliance.”
“I want to just come back on what the Minister said earlier about jobs to make the point that there will be no jobs on a dead planet. Overall, fault lies with the DAA. The Government is sidestepping an independent planning process. I urge the Minister to support our amendment.”
“This amendment aims to rectify that by ensuring the equivalent replacement principle is embedded in the scheme. We in the Labour Party are opposed to this Bill, as I have said. We believe that it is a total derogation of duty when it comes to our climate commitments. The Bill does apply to a lot of people who live in Dublin, but I believe this is a national issue. People across the country care about this. They care about our climate. This is only the latest in a string of similarly reckless Bills from the Government. If it must pass, I hope that the Government can at least accept this amendment so that some of the families who will be most affected by further expansion at the airport at least have some real protection and support.”
“That is why the principle of equivalent reinstatement, which is at the heart of our amendment No. 25, is so important. Affected families must be properly supported to secure equivalent replacement accommodation and should not be left materially worse off in any way as a consequence. It is important that families who are already going through this scheme are fully supported. Housing in Ireland has changed vastly, as the Minister knows, since the scheme was originally designed. These families face the same crisis of supply that any buyer in this country faces. The voluntary buyout scheme has not been meaningfully updated since 2016 and does not reflect current property values. The reality is that market valuation does not necessarily provide a pathway to replacement and reinstatement.”
“If the Oireachtas is being asked to facilitate future airport growth, it is equally important that those families bearing the greatest impact of that growth are treated fairly and afforded a realistic pathway to move on with their lives. For these families, living conditions have become increasingly difficult as the number of flights has grown. The impact on their lives is easy to imagine. It harms their ability to enjoy their own homes. When participating in the voluntary dwelling purchase scheme, these families are not engaging with the housing market in the ordinary way. They are not simply choosing to place their homes on the market. They are being asked to leave long-established homes, communities, family support networks and caring arrangements because of the impact of national infrastructure.”
“As it is currently constituted, the scheme does not represent a fair deal for the families affected. In contrast to the picture sometimes painted in the media, these are not people who have moved to the airport area and chosen to complain and grumble vexatiously. They are families in well-established homesteads who built their homes with full planning permission many decades ago and many families have multiple homes in this area. They have built a community over those decades and as the airport has grown and noise and disruption increased, they have engaged honestly and constructively on the issues. They are people who recognise the importance of the airport as a piece of national infrastructure. They fly abroad, like many other people. They just want a fair deal.”
“I will speak to amendment No. 25. I acknowledge that the Minister has said that he acknowledges that the voluntary dwelling purchase scheme could be improved and contact with residents is important. How can that be improved? Who is going to be ultimately responsible for that? Amendment No. 25 would, at line 22 on page 34, insert a new section, entitled, "Equivalent reinstatement standard for voluntary dwelling purchase scheme". This amendment arises from recommendation No. 15 of the pre-legislative scrutiny report on this Bill by the Joint Committee on Transport. It relates to the voluntary dwelling purchase scheme operated by the DAA, which, as Senators will be aware, offers homeowners in specific areas affected by noise the option to sell their properties to Dublin Airport.”
“We have seen it with the infrastructure Bill, we are seeing it with this Bill and we saw it again this week with the liquefied natural gas reserve Bill. This Bill does not just raise to some higher figure the current cap of 32 million passengers that Dublin Airport has consistently broken in recent years, but it also allows the Minister to scrap the cap altogether. No alternative ceiling is proposed. The Minister has floated a figure of 60 million passengers a year, almost doubling the current limit. The Labour Party has serious concerns over the Bill, so we are we are opposed to the Bill as a whole.”
“I also want to speak to this amendment. I support the calls for a report in relation to how this will affect balanced regional development. I live close to Cork Airport. I want to talk about the development of that airport, as well as two other airports in the Munster area, namely Shannon and Kerry. I welcome Adrienne McDonnell and Noel Hughes, who are in the Gallery. They are concerned residents who live near Dublin Airport. I have an amendment later on, which I will speak to. Generally, we in the Labour Party are opposed to this Bill. We opposed it in the Dáil. We believe it is an anti-climate Bill. The Government is making it clear that climate, environment and biodiversity considerations can be disregarded at will if they pose a challenge to their whims. This is the third Bill produced this term that seeks to disapply the climate Act.”
“A total of 923 babies died at the site, and only 64 have been accounted for. Women died on this site. I was there on Friday with the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Bacik, and Councillors Peter Horgan and Ciara O'Connor. We paid our respects at the folly, which is being used because there is no headstone and no marked graves. This is a huge issue for Ireland. It is a site of conscience, historical importance and education and we need to preserve it. We need to press our Taoiseach to do more on this. It is in his constituency of Cork South-Central and he needs to stop prevaricating on this issue.”
“He said that there was significant work to be done for this specific site because the land not being in State possession is an issue and that he will work with all, including the council, to see what can be done to deal with this. I do not know what the Taoiseach has done in relation to the site. On Leaders’ Questions last week, he threw the city council under the bus. He said he believed that the site should have been compulsorily purchased by the council years ago. Again, we await the decision that is due to be made this week. Regardless of what that decision is, however, the State needs to step up to the mark here. Surveys were done at the site which did not involve the use of all the modern technology that is available. There are families and survivors who do not know where babies are buried.”
“In relation to the site of the Bessborough mother and baby home in Cork, this week is critical because we will be hearing the decision in terms of planning for the building of 140 apartments there. I want to call out the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, in relation to this issue. The site is located is his constituency. Just last year, on 29 June 2025, he spoke at the commemorative event held there. The Taoiseach has spoken out of both sides of his mouth in respect of this issue. He has been weak on it. He needs to stand by the survivors. He stated that there was "unfinished work here" in respect of this site and that he "will work with Cork City Council".”
“How can this be the case if the test for disclosure is such a broad and weak threshold as interests of justice? I intend to move these amendments and again say that we have tried everything we can from a Labour Party perspective to ameliorate this legislation and protect survivors.”
“However, the legislation proposed does not limit reliance on the interests of justice standard to just the prosecution. The accused and the defence team can just as readily go to court to seek access to counselling notes on the basis they believe they should get access in the interests of justice. This can clearly arise even where there is no real risk of an unfair trial at play. If the Minister intends the accused should only access a complainant's counselling notes in cases where otherwise there would be a real risk of an unfair trial, then the lower standard of interests of justice must be removed in respect of counselling notes. The Minister stated on Committee Stage that his proposals will bring to an end the routine disclosure of counselling notes.”
“It is too low and its retention in respect of counselling notes will facilitate continued routine applications for disclosure in sexual assault cases. While there is reference in the proposed legislation to a real risk of an unfair trial, in substance this is superfluous where the interests of justice standard applies alongside it. Every case that meets the real risk of an unfair trial standard will also qualify for disclosure under the interests of justice standard. Simply put, the proposal should be read as enabling access to counselling records in the interests of justice, full stop. On Committee Stage, the Minister made reference to his reasoning for including the interests of justice threshold by explaining that there are many instances in which counselling notes are of benefit to the prosecution in a criminal trial.”
“30 seeks to insert a stipulation that the court cannot order a disclosure of a record after a hearing unless it is satisfied the information contained in that counselling note could not be reasonably obtained by any other means. We believe this common sense safeguard would provide more protection for survivors by ensuring the bolstering of the presumption of non-disclosure that is contained elsewhere in our amendments. Amendment No. 32 would increase the threshold for disclosure of counselling records to the accused to that of a real risk of an unfair trial standard. In the Government's proposal, counselling notes can be disclosed in the interests of justice. This is the same as the current threshold that applies.”
“29, as currently formulated the Government's proposal would allow the court to direct a record holder to furnish the DPP with the records sought, including counselling records, without survivor's consent and prior to the survivor even being notified of the fact of a disclosure application. This loose approach to the agency, autonomy and wishes of survivors is of grave concern and has been flagged repeatedly to the Minster since the introduction of this current proposal in May. We have provided an easy solution to this in our amendment No. 29 by removing counselling records from the relevant subsection. Amendment No.”
“It is incumbent now on the Oireachtas, as the legislator of the State, to enshrine the basic standards referred to in the AM case into the primary legislation that regulates these disclosure applications. Doing so sends out a clear message to accused persons and defence teams that it is not business as usual and applications to access the most intimate and private notes of complainants must be fully considered and reasoned before being made. Failing to introduce this minimum basic safeguard is incredibly difficult to understand. In regard to amendment No.”
“From the outset, I will speak to a number of the amendments. We believe amendment No. 28 should be a straightforward, uncontroversial amendment. It asks the accused to genuinely make an effort to provide reasons that engage directly with the case at trial as to why the complainant's private records should be accessed. It does no more than this. The proposed criteria set out largely reflect the arbiter's statements in the Supreme Court AM case, which the Minister referred to on Committee Stage as having slightly alleviated the circumstances. In that case the Supreme Court described the operation of the section 19A process as profoundly problematic. Section 19A was not the issue being decided on in that case, however, and so the court's statements are not binding.”
“I am also conscious the debate on this legislation has generated significant public interest and interest in the media. I would be very worried about the effects of this the debate and the messaging that is sent out to survivors and to those who are thinking of coming forward if they have experienced sexual violence and sexual assault. I hope there would not be a further chilling effect of people seeking counselling, therapy or support, or to report. I think it is really important. It is important to state as well the amazing work rape crisis centres do across the country and the likes of Women's Aid, the National Women's Council of Ireland and the many support groups that are there. There is support there for survivors but I believe that our justice system needs to do better for them.”
“We have really tried to make this Bill better by working with the DRCC as well and taking legal advice in relation to that. I commend survivors on their bravery in speaking out and contacting us on this matter. There are people like Paula who have spoken out about their experiences. I cannot imagine how difficult that must be and it takes a lot of courage. I want to make the point that the justice system, I believe, is not doing right by survivors in the sense we already have low reporting rates. We already know there is a lot of retraumatisation that takes place when people do report. They seem to face barriers at every step along the way. This is something we need to address as a society. Counselling notes should not be used and weaponised against anybody and I am worried about any chilling effects as part of this.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. As I am conscious that we may have a guillotine at 6 p.m., it is important that we try to get to all the amendments, if possible. I intend to move amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, and No. 32. From the outset, I am proud of the Labour Party's efforts in relation to this and the counselling notes piece. Ultimately, personally and from a party perspective, we are against counselling notes being used in trials, as has been said by other Senators, survivors and the countless emails that we have received from professionals who are working in therapy and counselling. This is something that we are opposed to. We have put forward alternative mechanisms, which we wanted the Minister to consider. We in the Labour Party have done everything we can from our point of view on this.”
“There needs to be further debate on that. I know that is outside the scope of what we are discussing for this particular piece.”
“We have the injection centre in Merchants Quay in Dublin. We need to see that replicated in other areas, such as Cork. These are places where drug use can happen in a safe environment. For example, alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs in the world. We have places for the use of that. We need to look at how we deal with alcohol. For example, if somebody is obviously disorderly in public, they can be convicted. Is there an element of that when we are speaking about drug use? I wanted to speak broadly on the health-led approach. We need to have a broader debate on that in the Oireachtas. The Joint Committee on Drugs Use has done great work in relation to this. The Minister referenced British Columbia and Oregon in relation to these issues. I do not know if we have seen how the evidence there would apply to Ireland.”
“I want to speak briefly on this topic to put my thoughts on it on record. I have concerns about the increase in the number of criminal convictions we may see of people who will have drugs on them for personal use. I echo the comments of Senator Higgins in relation to the health-led approach. We need to take into account that many people have repeated convictions for drug use because they are stuck in a cycle of addiction. That is not of their own choice. If we are to repeatedly convict them, that will not contribute to a health-led approach to this issue. We need to be mindful of that. I have serious concerns about this measure as regards testing. I acknowledge the point the Minister made in relation to drug use in public places. As part of the broader debate, I will put my thoughts on injection centres on record.”
“We believe a starting point would be giving the new oifig IS na hÉireann, which will be established under this Bill, the powers to monitor the impact of AI on jobs and work, promote responsible rights respecting AI use by employers, and lead on ensuring upskilling and retraining opportunities are made available as AI will disrupt the jobs market.”
“Some 11% of workers in Ireland fear losing their job to AI in the next five years, and 38% believe it is likely their employers will use AI to replace workers where possible. These are huge concerns. AI can also have serious negative impacts on job quality. AI pessimism has been found to be prevalent among workers, with one in two workers in Ireland not believing their workplace will adopt AI in a way that is beneficial to them. My time is running out, but I just want to say from a workers' rights perspective that we absolutely need to be steadfast with regard to protecting workers and being on their side when it comes to artificial intelligence.”
“My colleague, Deputy Lawlor, raised significant constitutional concerns with this legislation in the Dáil, relating to the system of adjudication on fines and how that relates to our constitutionally protected judicial independence. We need clear answers on those questions already raised, but we also need to see much more urgency from the Government in responding to the challenge of AI. This Bill makes a start on that regulation but there is no sign the Government is fully taking seriously the challenge AI will pose to the jobs market and the world of work. For example, even if the overall level of employment does not decrease, what jobs are available, where they are available and to whom may radically change. That churn occurs as part of this transition, and it is going to have real world consequences for many people.”
“It has the potential to deliver much good, but it needs to have the public's trust in order to do this, and it needs to have effective regulation. The EU AI Act was an important world first in beginning to put regulatory guardrails in place, but it is certainly not perfect. There are issues, including how companies effectively self-designate as high risk or otherwise, how it fails to effectively safeguard copyright protections for creatives, and gaps in its definition of high-risk AI uses. Nonetheless, it was a vital first step and it is welcome that this Bill aims to implement some of the requirements arising from that legislation relating to Ireland. We need to make sure this legislation is watertight.”
“AI is already fundamentally changing our economy, our jobs market, the way we work and ultimately, how we live our lives. It is also changing how important decisions are made. It is incumbent on any Government to recognise the scale of the challenge here and to respond. We cannot simply leave the direction of this transformation to the tech giants. We know their only priority will be the power and profits they hope will flow their way on the back of this AI revolution, so regulation and democratic guardrails are essential. The choice we are faced with is not between AI or no AI - it is already here and there are many benefits to it - but between a human-centred AI that serves ordinary people and AI that serves tech billionaires and those who want to oppress.”
“I echo the concerns of colleagues over the amount of time we have to scrutinise this legislation. It is important that we get to have a full debate in the Seanad in relation to it. It was quite appalling that the tech companies refused to engage with Oireachtas committees. I thought it was a real mark of disrespect to the media committee, but also to the committee on artificial intelligence. When we invited many of them in, I think only one showed up. This is something on which they need to engage more with us as public representatives. Ultimately, the Labour Party welcomes the intent of this Bill. The emergence of AI will likely lead to some of the most significant societal and economic change we will see in our lifetimes, and good regulation is absolutely critical.”
“You do not even have to inform them you are cancelling, and you will be put back to the start of the list again. That window should be closed to 72 hours, potentially, to put more impetus on people to give notice when they are cancelling. It is a common communication best practice that should be in place. There are a number of areas that need to be looked at. I would welcome further discussion in this House on that whole area of learning to drive and supporting driving instructors and road safety. Writing to the Minister in relation to this issue would be appreciated.”
“Second, it was quite alarming to hear that approved driving instructors in Ireland, who have a stakeholder forum elected by them, have not been invited to the Road Safety Authority, RSA, conference. They do not get invited to the RSA conference on an annual basis. I would like to get clarity on that from the Minister because it is important they are involved in any discussions in relation to road safety. We also need to look at further reducing the waiting times for driving tests in this country. Currently, in the Cork-Kerry area, you are looking at waiting anywhere between ten and 13 weeks for a driving test. That is still quite a long wait. We also need to look at the policies that are in place if you do not show up to your driving test or cancel it. You can currently cancel within ten days.”
“I raise the issue of learning to drive and supporting approved driving instructors in this country. I was on the phone this morning to a driver instructor in Cork. His name is Michael Kenrick, and he runs a page, Get Your Licence. He was updating me on some of the challenges that instructors are facing. First, they are not entitled to any grants for electric vehicles, whereas taxi drivers, for example, can avail of a grant of up to €25,000. I believe this needs to be reviewed. Driving instructors are often the first port of call when educating anyone on driving, and also introducing them to different vehicles. This is particularly important if it is a priority for the Government to promote electric vehicles. Driving instructors should also be supported to move in that direction. This needs to be reviewed.”
“It acknowledges that many historically relied-on partners are chosen family rather than relatives, with whom they may have had strained relationships or from whom they may have been estranged. Having moved this amendment on behalf of the Civil Engagement Group, I will withdraw it after the Minister has responded.”
“The disregard scheme is designed to allow individuals or their representatives to apply to have historic convictions for consensual same-sex sexual activity to be disregarded. The Bill, as drafted, refers only to a relative in setting out who may act on behalf of a relevant person. It fails to take account of the lived realities of many LGBTQIA+ people, particularly those who are elderly or who have sadly already deceased. I outlined my own concerns in this regard under the previous relevant section. Amendment No. 33 seeks to address this by broadening the definition to include a "partner, or other demonstrably trusted person to the relevant person". The amendment seeks to ensure that the process by which a historic conviction can be disregarded or expunged is accessible, inclusive and reflective of the lived realities of LGBTQIA+ people.”
“I move amendment No. 33: In page 45, line 2, after “relative” to insert “, partner, or other demonstrably trusted person to the relevant person” I am moving this amendment on behalf of the Civil Engagement Group, with its permission. I will speak to the amendment initially. It seeks, on page 45, line 2 of the Bill, after "relative", to insert "partner, or other demonstrably trusted person to the relevant person". The amendment proposes to extend the provision that allows for relatives of a deceased person to apply for the disregard of convictions or determinations against them to the person's surviving partner or another demonstrably trusted person. As drafted, the Bill prevents persons other than close relatives of the deceased person from applying for a disregard of historic convictions or determinations.”
“We have come to this point through a lot of campaigning and courage over the years from many different campaigners and many people who have spoken out, as well as the families and friends of those who had a conviction. It is important that we get it right, and it is welcome that progress is being made. I commend my colleague, Deputy Nash, on spearheading this over the years. He has done enormous work on this issue.”
“This Bill should also include an acknowledgement that where an application is not made, a person who had a relevant conviction should be generally regarded as exonerated. This is really important in light of the discriminatory nature of their conviction. I wish to hear the Minister's assurances on these matters, and, failing that, I will look at bringing forward further amendments on Report Stage. I again acknowledge Karl Hayden, who is in the Gallery, and who has been a long-time campaigner in relation to this issue. Brian Sheehan and Kieran Rose, who visited this House yesterday, have been closely following this debate and advocating for these changes for many years, along with my colleagues in Labour LGBT, a very active section within our party.”
“On section 51, the Labour Party wholeheartedly welcomes this legislation but there are some outstanding issues which we wish to hear the Minister respond to. These issues were previously raised by my colleague, Deputy Nash, in the Dáil. A key issue is that this legislation needs to take account of members of the Defence Forces who received convictions under military law. These people cannot be excluded from this disregard proposal. Another issue is that we need to broaden the scope of who can submit an application on behalf of a deceased person. We need to be conscious that during the last century, gay people were often shunned, excluded or otherwise disconnected from close familial connections. That needs to be taken into account by allowing a wider network of people to submit an application to this scheme on behalf of a deceased person.”
“This amendment would ensure that the street furniture contained in licensed outdoor areas could not contain corporate branding other for the licensed premises itself, limiting the use of our public realm as an unregulated advertising billboard. I moved this amendment on behalf of the Civil Engagement Group but I will withdraw it at this stage.”
“While there are laudable aesthetic considerations in reducing unnecessary visual clutter, the primary concern relates to the legibility of public spaces and, therefore, their accessibility for people who have difficulty navigating the built environment. With this in mind, the CEG proposes that we should attempt to reduce unnecessary clutter in the built environment wherever possible. While recognising the financial considerations in terms of licensed premises accepting complementary street furniture from alcohol beverage companies, the CEG believes the primary consideration must be about how this corporate branded furniture interfaces with the community through the public realm.”
“There is a public health rationale for this amendment as the subtle and unregulated erection of these advertisements is in conflict with the advertising codes for alcoholic beverages as set out in the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018, with particular respect to the watersheds that prevent advertisements for alcoholic products being broadcast at different times during the day and the displaying of advertisements for alcoholic products near public transport stops, crèches, schools and playgrounds. There is an additional rationale for the amendment in relation to the visual impact that branded street furniture has in the public realm. The public realm in Ireland tends to be quite cluttered when compared with many of our counterparts in Europe. One only needs to walk around Dublin city centre to see this.”
“The Civil Engagement Group has stated that the Minister will acknowledge and understand that if we walk around the city we will see outdoor areas of many licensed premises that contain street furniture such as umbrellas, canopies, awnings, barriers or guardrails that contain advertisements for brands and companies other than for the licensed premises itself. In the majority of circumstances these advertisements are for alcohol brands that pay for street furniture in exchange for their brand names being included on them.”
“I move amendment No. 32: In page 37, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(d) the area does not contain any street furniture incorporating advertisements, apart from the name of the licensed premises, that are visible to members of the public, unless with the prior consent of the relevant local authority;”. Amendment No. 32 relates to the Bill's provisions regarding the licensing of outdoor seating areas in licensed premises. Through the amendment, the Civil Engagement Group seeks to prevent the erection of street furniture containing advertisements in outdoor seating areas unless prior consent has been provided by the relevant local planning authority.”
“I move amendment No. 29: In page 35, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(2) A person who, being a landlord or licensor of relevant accommodation that is let or licensed in exchange for payment, solicits or importunes another person to engage in sexual activity with any person in lieu of, or in exchange for a reduction in, payment in respect of the tenancy or licence shall be guilty of an offence.”.”
“Obviously there are further Stages to come on the Bill itself but it is a step forward in this area. It is important that the commitment is upheld to keep it under review. It is new legislation and we need to see how it plays out. Ultimately, we need to ensure that it is protecting those who are most vulnerable, particularly women, migrants, those whose first language might not be English and those who are living in poverty. As we need to ensure it is working for them, a review of it will be needed. I thank the Minister for his collaboration, openness and proactivity in relation this area.”
“It will be impactful, hopefully coming up to the new college year, to have this in place and to emphasise that there is this statutory provision and it should act as a deterrent. There needs to be public awareness around the issue and that this is going to be a new law. Interestingly, this morning at the Oireachtas committee on further and higher education, we were discussing matters in relation to sexual harassment and violence and particularly in relation to students. We had a number of different groups in and they talked about the issue of sex for rent and how prevalent it is, particularly for international students, migrants and those who are vulnerable. Again, it is really important that we have this provision in place. I do welcome it.”
“I thank the Minister for the reply on the amendments. It is important that we do keep it under review. It is new legislation and it will be important to see how it plays out in respect of reports on the issue and people who come forward with any potential cases. It will be important to see how robust the legislation is. I am happy to withdraw the amendments at this stage. I appreciate that the Minister has been collaborative on this issue. When I introduced my own legislation - I think in April of last year - the intention was to be proactive and to come up with a solution. I appreciate that the Minister has taken that on board and within 18 months has come up with a proposal in that regard.”