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 6 of 14.
“Many are trying to capitalise on this, including bad actors and extremists. We need to provide proper democratic alternatives.”
“When we talk about poverty, we are talking about not having warm clothes, not being able to eat, not having shelter and not being able to make friends, build a community and have an independent life. One in five people with a disability is living in poverty in Ireland. The Government made them €1,400 less well off in the last budget. I have to ask what the Government is doing with our public money. We know there is a lot of wastage. That has been reported. It is wasting a boom time when it should be protecting ordinary people in this country. That is what the protests were about. They were about the cost that it takes to exist in this country and to live and build a life whether you can or cannot work. The Government needs to do better. We all need to do better. We in opposition need to and are offering a credible alternative.”
“They say that a week is a long time in politics. Certainly for the Government, the last week has been a game-changer in that it has lost credibility with many of the Irish people and just half an hour ago it lost one of its Ministers of State. A week is a long time. It is long time if you are living in poverty. A day is long time if you are living in poverty. One in five children in this country is living in poverty when housing costs are taken into account. That rises to over 40% for those renting. We are not protecting renters; there were 20,000 evictions in 2025. These fuel protests were not just about fuel; they were about the cost of living. There is a difference between living and existing and many people in this country are trying to merely exist.”
“That is a real concern for me. It needs to be a consideration for the Government in the upcoming budgetary discussions. We need to be planning forward. People are being crucified in this country by the cost of living, energy, home heating, housing, rent, education, childcare, transport and healthcare. Rising costs are a real issue. We have seen that in the past week. I observed the protests. There were people there from every demographic in society. They were represented in the protests. Every age group was represented. It is something that is going to continue if there are not further measures and further forward planning taken into account.”
“It was really worrying to see reports in the papers recently that a number of homes, businesses and sports clubs in Cork, particularly in the Bishopstown area, may be impacted by the route. There was no consultation done with these individuals. There needs to be proper consultation when we are talking about public transport. I raise the issue of the fuel protests. We have a debate on it later. I raise a concern around budgets in this country, including budgetary planning for different for groups. We have seen now as a result of this protest, and rightly so, there has been a package offered in relation to this. Why was this not done sooner? We also saw SNAs and schools having to protest recently as they sought vital funds which had been allocated for. Again, why are people having to take on the State in terms of protest?”
“I also want to express my condolences to the family of the late Brian O'Shea, former Minister of State, TD and Senator, and particularly to his wife, Eileen, and his six children, Christine, Anne, Paddy, Siobhán, John and Mary. I am certain they are very proud of Brian's service to this State. He was a loyal member of the Labour Party for many years and contributed hugely to the country and to Waterford. He was a long-standing trade unionist. I offer my condolences to his family. I will raise two issues on the Order of Business. First, I will raise the issue of the Cork light rail system. The preferred route is being launched again this Friday. We are eager to see this. There will be an extended period of public consultation.”
“The Labour Party recommends that, in cases where an extension is granted under exceptional circumstances, this period be used to fully support all wards and their committees in understanding the discharge process and to prepare them for life after the wardship. I fully welcome the central aim of the Act in removing the outdated wardship system, but the amending Bill only further reinforces a failing system. It does not address any of the central problems that exist with the wardship system and fails to acknowledge the rights of disabled people. If the Government truly wants to support disabled people, it must address the issues that are being outlined in this House.”
“One in seven of the 250 people who have been discharged from warship so far have been deemed to have full capacity and are not in any decision-making arrangement under the current system. This implies that many of those who are locked in the wardship system are entirely capable of making their own decision. This underscores the importance of not just exiting the wardship system, but ensuring there is engagement with wards throughout the process. The Bill does not provide any engagement or consultation with the ward. I note that a number of bodies like the National Disability Authority and the National Advocacy Service for People with Disabilities have highlighted the lack of supports for wards trying to navigate the discharge process. There is an opportunity to address this advocacy deficit.”
“The Labour Party has looked at recommendations provided by the Centre for Disability Law and Policy in the University of Galway and agrees that a more just approach in these circumstances would be to only activate the extension in circumstances where it has not been possible to inform a ward of their rights in an appropriate and accessible manner, and for judges to ensure that the extension of the deadline is used only to support the ward and their committee to engage meaningfully and to participate fully in the discharge process. We are concerned about the lack of consultation with current wardships. In reading the amending Bill, I have only found sections that refer to notifying the ward.”
“Wardship is an extremely outdated system, with wording based in an Ireland long forgotten. The Government, however, did not realise the true complexities involved in discharging people from wardship along with the confusion it brought to many households. The amendment of section 54 of the Act will allow for judges to extend a deadline for the discharge from wardship under "exceptional circumstances", but there is no clarification of what constitutes an exceptional circumstance.”
“The project found that people had difficulty navigating and using the Decision Support Service, DSS's online portal. It also found that there were delays in processing support arrangements with the DSS and that people had difficulties obtaining the legal statement of capacity that must be provided by a legal practitioner. I welcome the fact that a specific enduring power of attorney, EPA, website has been created. This will no doubt take a lot of pressure off people navigating the process of creating an EPA. However, we must highlight that their continues to exist a digital-first approach for a cohort of people who may prefer to use paper-based forms. It is reflective of the entire assisted decision-making system that the Government must now look at extending the deadline for all warship cases to be discharged.”
“In relation to wardship, one of the reasons cited for not initiating the process to transition out of wardship is that people feel there is not adequate information. They feel that they have not been well communicated with. However, there is also evidence that some committees and wards chose not to engage with the information that was made available by various public bodies. I want to highlight a project completed by Family Carers Ireland on the implementation of the Act. The CarerAid project found a number of issues being faced by people navigating the Act. These include difficulties finding legal practitioners willing to take on cases related to the 2015 Act, and a real lack of clarity and consistency from service providers, in particular financial services, on how the Act is integrated into their policies and practices.”
“I concur with Senator Tully's comments. "Nothing about us without us" is a phrase people hear from many organisations advocating for disabled persons in Ireland. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 changed the outdated wardship laws for a modern Ireland. It was a stepping stone towards beginning to view disability from a social rather than a medical model, but I have serious concerns with regard to the current implementation of the Act and the proposed legislative changes we are discussing. There is a lot of confusion regarding the Act for people impacted by it, as well as families and services. In particular, the Act brought a lot of conflict between the parents of adults with disabilities and service providers, as well as other bodies like financial institutions.”
“I also have concerns in relation to the lack of engagement with stakeholders around the launch of the strategy. It was disappointing that Aontas na Mac Léinn in Éirinn and student unions were not told about the launch. Some of them found out about it when they got calls from the media. It was a missed opportunity not to invite Opposition spokespersons on further and higher education to attend the launch, particularly in the context of having a more complete launch of the strategy. A lot of this has gone under the radar in terms of debate and coverage in the media. I would like to have a fulsome debate on the matter in the House.”
“I wish to raise two issues. First, statements relating to Bessborough are being taken in the Dáil today. A debate on this matter was previously requested for the Seanad by my colleague Senator Noonan. It would be great if we could seek to have such a debate. Second, the day before yesterday, the Government's new student accommodation strategy was launched by the Minister, Deputy Lawless. I have some concerns in relation to that strategy in the context of the over-reliance on private developers. In many ways, the strategy is one of public land for private developers. There are no protections in terms of rent caps for students or ensuring that college service charges cannot be used an excuse to increase rents above the 2% window relating to rent pressure zones. I request that the House engage in a debate on this matter.”
“We have to think about a united Ireland, the prospect that re-unification of the island could be imminent - in the coming years - and what it would mean for representation. Would we have regional assemblies? What would the Cabinet look like? It would be premature to have a referendum on this issue at the moment.”
“Other political reform issues we should look at as part of a wider suite include a fixed term parliament so the electorate knows when the elections will be set - that is done in other countries - automatic voter registration, votes at 16, extending the franchise and Seanad reform, which is overdue and needed. We need to open up the franchise for the Seanad. We had the referendum on the Seanad, which passed by a small margin. I campaigned for the retention of the Seanad back in 2012 and 2013. I do not think the cost saving argument stands up. That was the argument used for the abolition of the Seanad. A price cannot be put on democracy. We need more democracy, not less, particularly with what is happening in a global context at the moment.”
“It depends on which projections of population one looks at, but the CSO says that potentially by 2058, if we were to work off the same ratio, we would require 192 TDs. That is more than 30 years away. It depends on which population predictions are looked at and there a lot of variables but I do not see that as a massive increase. There should be public consultation on boundary changes, as opposed to having them imposed. It is unfair on areas that are moved around frequently from constituency to constituency, with the change in representatives and the constituencies they are part of. We should move away from three-seater constituencies and we should allow six-seater constituencies.”
“I welcome the debate on this issue. It is always good for us to discuss political reform. It is an important debate to have. I am not in favour of a hard cap on the number of TD places. We need to absolutely ensure we are not reducing representation in any way in the ratio of TD to population. As mentioned earlier, we are quite unique in that our public representatives are very accessible and we need to ensure we keep it that way in terms of how the public can access us. If we were to look at this measure, it should not be looked at on its own. We need to look at the work of councillors, that is empowering county and city councils to do more at a local level. I also favour bringing back town councils. We need to make sure there is more power with local councillors. They do not have staff, for example, and are not properly remunerated.”
“It is reasonable and sensible to ask that within 12 months, we would seek to review the legislation. There are clear concerns within this Chamber and from the public. People have been emailing us from different organisations who are concerned about child welfare and the detention of children and how that might affect them. We need to safeguard against this. If the legislation is effective and if it safeguards the rights of children then this is not something we should be afraid of providing. It is sensible and certainly is not an onerous thing to do. I urge the Minister to support this amendment.”
“We did bring other sensible amendments as well. In amendment No. 21 on Committee Stage, which we debated last week, we sought to define the best interests of the child within the legislation because that is not defined. We proposed that part of the broad definition should take into account the child's age and maturity, their identity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, safety and welfare and development needs, preservation of family relationships, and any particular vulnerabilities that a child might have in any other circumstances pertaining to the child concerned. The Minister responded that would have been too limiting, although they were very broad elements that we sought to include in the legislation. Now we are asking him to please provide a report as to how the legislation would impact on the rights of the child.”
“This report should be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. When we say the Minister should produce a report, of course we mean the Minister, in conjunction with the resources that he has in his office, and the many experts here in Ireland who monitor human rights, and the rights of children in Ireland and internationally. I saw the Ombudsman for Children, Niall Muldoon, stated in the Irish Examiner today that asylum seekers who are children are going to be hit hardest by this legislation. His comments about immigration are extremely worrying. This is one of the biggest changes to immigration law in Ireland in our recent history. It is extensive broad-ranging legislation and we believe there has to be proper examination of it. The Bill has been rushed through. It should not have been guillotined in the first place.”
“I am really dismayed that we may not get to speak to all of them. The heads of the Bill are clear. The Title of the Bill has the word "protection" in it. It is the International Protection Bill. That leads me to amendment No. 272, which relates to the rights of the child. This amendment calls for a report on the implementation of the Act. It asks that within 12 months of the passing of the Act, and every two years afterwards, the Minister would produce a report on the implementation of the Act regarding the compliance and adherence to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The report should analyse the effects of this Act and include details as to whether the treatment of asylum seekers, international protection applicants and other immigrants is compliant with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
“I also welcome my guests in the Gallery from the Cork Boat Club, Blackrock, Cork - Paul and Councillor Ciara O'Connor who are here as well. I agree with colleagues about the need to provide reporting in terms of this legislation. As part of this, I want to speak to amendment No. 272 but before I do that, I want to say that the use of the guillotine so frequently in the Dáil and Seanad is not just disappointing, it is quite alarming. We are here for a reason. As Senator Boyhan often says, we are a revising Chamber. This is part of what the Seanad does. The Oireachtas in Leinster House is a bicameral Legislature. We have two Chambers for a reason. We would have loved to have had more time to debate all these amendments. It is really unfortunate given that there are over 300 amendments. My name is on 45 of those amendments.”
“To say "best interests of the child" in terms of who is interpreting that, that is a very vague statement. There have to be guidelines in relation to this. Setting these particular ones out within the legislation would be very useful and clear. We have a duty of care to children in relation to their diversity, the different backgrounds they are coming from, the different family situations and the different vulnerabilities. It is important that we would include this amendment.”
“I want to concur with Senator Stephenson's remarks. I respectfully disagree with the Minister's comments that amendment No. 21 would be limiting. It specifically states "the following factors shall be taken into account". It does not say "the following factors only". The factors listed are very relevant. They include: the views of the child, having regard to the child's age and maturity; the child's identity, including their age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality and religion; safety, welfare and development needs; preservation of family relationships; any particular vulnerability of the child; and any other particular circumstances pertaining to the child concerned. These are very much basic things that should be considered and it is worth setting those out within the legislation. They are certainly not limiting.”
“Ultimately, the best interests of the child should be the defining statement of how we pursue this legislation from here on in. We cannot allow it to be loosely understood. We cannot allow it to be undefined. It is vital that the Government accepts this amendment.”
“The best interests principle should be the primary consideration for every aspect of this Bill that deals with children. That is why this amendment is necessary - to define on the face of the Bill the principle that must run throughout it in dealing with children. This needs to be defined. We cannot leave this loose. We already had a discussion on previous amendments on how we are moving into new territory with regard to detaining children. It is never good when children are being detained. It is not acceptable. However, we also need to have a definition regarding what we are doing to include the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in the application of the Bill's provision by inserting a definition into the interpretation section in order that it will run throughout the Bill.”
“Amendment No. 21 would include the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in the application of the Act's provisions by inserting a definition into the interpretation section. Nowhere in this Bill is the concept of the best interests of the child defined. It is referred to several times, including in the limitations being put in place regarding the detention of children, but it is left vague as to what that will actually mean. It needs to be defined as this amendment seeks to do. The principle of the best interests of the child is at the heart of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under Article 3 of the latter, we must ensure that the interests of the child are treated as a primary consideration in every action affecting children. EU law also makes this clear.”
“I move amendment No. 21: In page 23, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “(2) (a) In the application and interpretation of this Act, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all matters affecting a person who is a minor or who is presumed to be a minor. (b) In determining for the purposes of subsection (a) what is in the best interests of the child, the following factors shall be taken into account— (i) the views of the child, having regard to the child’s age and maturity, (ii) the child’s identity, including their age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality and religion, (iii) safety, welfare and development needs, (iv) preservation of family relationships, (v) any particular vulnerabilities of the child, and (vi) any other particular circumstances pertaining to the child concerned.”.”
“The reality is that detaining a child is never in their best interest. It is simply wrong. Ireland has never resorted to the detention of children who have not committed a crime in our migration system. This has been a point of pride for previous Governments and it is deeply regrettable that this Government is choosing to blindly ignore all the expert testimony that we have heard in order to play tough on immigration at the expense of vulnerable children. This amendment would straightforwardly remove these provisions from the Bill, which we believe is essential.”
“This amendment would delete the provisions in the Bill that allow for the detention of minors by the Garda in order to ascertain their identity or nationality. The Bill as it is currently drafted includes the stipulation that to detain a child, the Garda must be satisfied that it is in the unaccompanied minor's best interests. It is baffling that this provision has made it this far through the Bill's passage when the evidence, as heard through pre-legislative scrutiny and beyond, is that this is impossible. We could charitably see the Government's determination to include this as wishful thinking that if we just keep saying that it is in the child's best interests, then it will be. We could less charitably see it as wilful ignorance from the Government. Our job in these Houses is to legislate based on reality not on wishful thinking.”
“In cases where a child is in the custody of an applicant, it is imperative that the child is not under threat of detention simply by way of accompanying their parent or guardian to the detention centre. Where a child is under the guardianship of an adult, less coercive measures must be applied. That is what these amendments seek to do. Together with amendment No. 7, they would seek to ensure that a child who has not committed any crime cannot be detained under this Bill. Amendment No. 52 would remove the Bill's provision on allowing for the detention of a child. The specific amendment deals with the detention of children, which is not compatible with their best interests. Every human rights organisation and expert group we have heard from on this Bill has been clear on this point.”
“50 and 51, would require that when an applicant was accompanied by a child, less coercive measures than detention were used. The expansion of detention under this Bill, and putting powers of arrest at the heart of our migration system for the first time, is deeply regrettable. What is more, the Bill does not provide the safeguards necessary for vulnerable people and groups within the system. Most egregiously, as has already been said, the Bill allows for the detention of children. I have repeated this many times, as have many other Senators in the Chamber, but it is a point worth repeating, as this Bill would set a precedent in this regard that had not been set before.”
“It is not our job as legislators to legislate for the best intentions of the Government or the Minister of the day. I am sure the Minister will say this amendment is unnecessary because of course this is not his version of our migration system. However, simply put, we do not believe the Bill as drafted includes the necessary safeguards to ensure that arrest and detention will not at some point in the future take centre stage in our migration system. We must guard against this. The impetus for this amendment is to protect the fundamental right to seek asylum and to ensure it can never be criminalised in this country. Amendment No. 49 requires less coercive measures where a person is accompanied by a child. This amendment, with amendments Nos.”
“Amendment No. 38 ensures that an applicant cannot be arrested for the reason of their having claimed asylum alone or because of their nationality. The Bill significantly expands the powers of arrest and detention within our asylum and immigration system, and this is regrettable. This amendment makes clear on the face of the Bill that the act of seeking international protection itself can never be criminalised. It is a simple amendment. The expansion of detention inherent in the Bill is unwelcome and something we are completely opposed to. We only need to look around the world to see the dark places we end up in when migration itself is treated as a criminal matter or when detention centres become the primary means of dealing with this issue.”
“The Minister claimed in the Dáil that this was effectively unnecessary because the Bill already limited the circumstances for detention, including that of children, as though that should end the discussion on this matter. However, the limit he spoke about was the requirement that the Garda must be satisfied that the child's detention is in the best interests of the child, which as we know is a fiction. He also pointed to the fact that the detention would be limited to 12 hours as if to say that 12 hours' detention was a trifling matter not deserving of our scrutiny. Simply put, we are not satisfied that this issue is dealt with adequately in the Bill and that is why we are putting forward this amendment. We need to make it crystal clear on the face of the Bill that all other options must first be looked at before detention is resorted to.”
“Ireland has never in the past resorted to the detention of children for immigration reasons. This has been a point of pride for successive Governments, so it is extremely regrettable that this Bill is going to propose the detention of children. However, if the Government is insistent, as it seems to be, on changing this and for the first time embedding the detention of children within our immigration system, this amendment is absolutely vital. I urge the Minister to accept it. We need to ensure that we look at all alternatives available to the State with regard to how we treat people once they arrive in the country, the process we put them through, and the places in which we put them.”
“I will speak to amendments Nos. 19, 38 and 49 to 52, inclusive. I first state that the detention of a child is not acceptable, as many human rights organisations have said. I have been contacted by so many people even today about this Bill who have serious concerns. People from counties across the country are sending in concerns, such as I am sure have been received by other Senators. Amendment No. 19 would define "measure of last resort" to ensure that non-custodial alternatives are enshrined in the Bill and all alternatives are examined before a person, either adult or child, is detained. We should be clear, as human rights groups have said, that the detention of a child is never in the best interests of the child. I want to repeat that. It is incompatible with that best interest, yet the Bill allows for the detention of children.”
“If there was a headline in the paper this morning saying 859 babies were missing, there would be a national campaign to find them. I believe the State has not done enough and has abdicated its responsibility by not stepping in. Can the State step in regarding this matter and is it willing to do so?”
“I thank the Minister of State for her response. In 2021, the then, and current, Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, when he was giving a State apology, said, “It is the duty of a republic to be willing to hold itself to account". He also said that we need to confront the truth and uncomfortable parts of our history. I wonder if those words were empty, because I believe much more action is needed to provide justice for survivors. Survivors need to be absolutely central to any decisions made regarding that site and what will happen with it. Their views need to be taken on board. While surveys were conducted, no radar penetration surveys were conducted on that site. It is very remiss that we would allow private developers onto that site with the potential of juvenile human remains on it. It is the utmost disrespect.”
“Why is it allowing private developers to do this? It is a kick in the teeth and shows the utmost disrespect to the survivors and those who suffered at Bessborough. I believe it should be a memorial and education centre where schools can go and children can learn about our history. It should not be sold off. Only 60 acres of the site are left. Much of the land is already gone. Do those babies who died there matter? Are some children more valuable than others? I have to ask these questions. What is being done to protect sites such as Bessborough? What has been done to date by the State in regard to this matter?”
“The full archive was not published. The State has current responsibility for providing justice for survivors. The State cannot discharge its responsibility for what happened in Bessborough and other sites like this throughout this country. That is why a Labour Party councillor, Peter Horgan, my colleague in Cork, has lodged an appeal this week in relation to this planning, along with Carmel Cantwell who is a campaigner with survivors. There are 70 conditions attached to the current planning permission. Some of them state that the building and the diggers will have to stop if they find juvenile remains and that an archaeologist should be on site. However, I believe that this is an admission that it is highly likely that there are remains there. Why is the State not conducting this survey and excavation itself?”
“Women were sent there through no choice of their own. The State, religious institutions and society as a whole colluded against these women and pretended that shame was justice. 923 babies died at Bessborough, of whom 859 are unaccounted for. There are just 64 with records. Marasmus was frequently cited as a cause of death. Marasmus was severe malnutrition. Ireland now risks taking part in a further wrong to cover over our national shame by bulldozing over the memories of those women and entombing this resting place of babies with concrete, covering the area with apartments. The planning permission to grant 140 private apartments on this site by Cork City Council is wrong. The commission of investigation found it highly likely that juvenile remains would be on this site. No radar penetration survey was done on this site.”
“Some 19,000 women and children passed through Bessborough in Cork when it operated as a mother and baby home. It only closed in 1998. This is part of our very recent history in Ireland. It is part of our past, it is part of our present and it is certainly part of our future as a country. About 10% of the women who were sent there were from County Kerry, where the Minister responsible for children, Deputy Foley, resides. This affected women all across Munster, including Cork and all throughout Ireland. I commend those who protested yesterday at the gates of Leinster House. The protest was organised by Councillor Noelle Brown who is a survivor. It was just incredible to hear the courageous women speaking about their experiences and how they are affected by the trauma of what they experienced as a result of these institutions.”
“Ireland is a wealthy country at the minute and there is money in the coffers. It is important that we do not waste what has accrued from what has to an extent been a boom over the past ten years. We need to ensure there is something to show for it for the long-term development of the country. Infrastructure will be critical to this.”
“Judicial reviews should not be treated as a bogeyman, as they have been by the Government. The Law Society noted recently that the number of judicial reviews decreased by 25% in 2025. Where is the evidence for the approach the Government is taking? The Labour Party has welcomed the plan, and the Opposition and Government need to work together to ensure it is delivered on in the best way for the country. We welcome the creation of a duty on State bodies to co-operate and the streamlining of approvals for critical infrastructure. The objective could be met by giving the LDA and other State agencies the power to compel State bodies to transfer land. We need to see the national planning statement for critical infrastructure urgently because the current regulatory system, as it applies to infrastructure, is not fit for purpose.”
“We welcome the streamlining of approvals for critical infrastructure projects and the fact that greater co-ordination is to be demanded across the public service on the delivery of infrastructure. We also welcome the duty of State bodies to co-operate in making land available and accessible for projects. The commitment to clear timelines is also positive. However, accountability will be key to success. The Labour Party will be holding the Government to account on the performance indicators. The Labour Party has outlined concerns regarding the over-zealous focus on judicial reviews. Legal reforms may be a necessary part of a comprehensive process like that envisaged but the Government seems to view limits to judicial reviews as a panacea. Access to effective justice underpins our whole democracy.”
“When I was a city councillor, I suggested there should be a board seat on the NTA for the CEO of Cork City Council. It is vital that Cork be prioritised. The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council has said there is a deficit of 80,000 construction workers in Ireland. We have seen a figure indicating our construction sector productivity is 30% below the EU average. Addressing this absolutely needs to be prioritised for those who live, work and study in Cork, but also the rest of the country. It also needs to be prioritised for employers. Construction sector productivity is key to attracting investment and new businesses in Cork and also across the rest of the country. On the accelerating infrastructure plan, the Labour Party has been clear. It has welcomed it cautiously. We need to see it delivered on. It will be judged on its actual delivery.”
“You would be hard pressed to get a bus, and the light rail system should also be going there. In Cork, we say we are the real capital and the rebel city, but it is described as the second city and needs to be treated as such. We are not really seeing that in terms of investment outside of Dublin and balanced regional development. Cork is a beacon of the south and Munster more widely and it needs to be supported. Cork City Council is delivering on housing and needs to be supported in continuing to do that. I support comments from Deputy Séamus McGrath today regarding transport. He has called for an office to be set up, with Transport Infrastructure Ireland, the National Transport Authority, NTA, Bus Éireann and Irish Rail in one hub to deal with Cork and ensure we deliver on the promised infrastructure that is needed.”