Nicole Ryan
Administrative Panel · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“This is not just happening in my area; it is also happening in other places where estates are not being taken in charge and, therefore, residents do not know who to call if something happens. They are left alone. Tanyard Wood is unique because nobody has taken charge of the estate for ten years.”
“By 2007, the developer had gone bust and therefore, Cork County Council submitted an appeal to take charge of the estate. It has been almost ten years and it still has not taken charge of the estate. It sits in no man's land. The estate has not been maintained. No proper maintenance at all is happening.”
“It means that cancer patients in the mid-west have virtually no opportunity to access clinical trials. Accident and emergency access, dentistry and now access to clinical trials for cancer patients - how did we get to this point?”
“I will speak briefly on amendments Nos. 39 and 41. Amendment No. 39 is quite straightforward. It ensures that applicants are clearly informed of two fundamental rights within their international protection process.”
“At the core, the amendment is about ensuring individuals entrusted with supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our system are properly trained, suitable for the role and held to appropriate standards.”
“We need clear timelines. Interim measures are required to ensure residents are not left feeling unsafe or conditions are allowed to deteriorate while progress drags on. People bought homes in the area in good faith.”
The complete record
Every one of 598 lines we hold for Nicole Ryan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“The amendment simply requires the Minister to produce a report assessing Tusla's staffing levels, operational capacity and resources in relation to these new duties. If we are serious about protecting vulnerable children, we must ensure the agencies responsible for their care have the resources necessary to fulfil that role. The amendment seeks to ensure those safeguards are in place.”
“These responsibilities include assessing the needs of vulnerable children, co-ordinating their care arrangements and ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place throughout the process. Those are extremely important responsibilities. Children arriving in the State without a parent or guardian are among the most vulnerable individuals in our international protection system. However, we must also be honest about the pressure existing within the child protection system. Tusla is dealing with significant staff shortages and increased demand for services. Serious concerns have also been raised about unaccompanied minors going missing from care. Against that background, it is entirely unreasonable to ask whether Tusla has capacity to take on the expanded responsibilities the legislation proposes.”
“(2) A report under subsection (1) shall include— (a) an assessment of the staffing levels, operational capacity and organisational structures of the Child and Family Agency insofar as they relate to the performance of its functions under this Act, (b) an assessment of the financial and other resources available to the Agency for the purpose of fulfilling those functions, and (c) information on the measures in place to support the Agency in complying with its statutory obligations under this Act.”. This amendment concerns the capacity of Tusla, the Child and Family Agency. Under the legislation, Tusla will assume additional responsibilities in relation to unaccompanied minors seeking international protection.”
“I move amendment No. 22: In page 23, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “Report on capacity of Child and Family Agency 3. (1) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act or of any relevant Part thereof, lay before each House of the Oireachtas a report on the capacity of the Child and Family Agency to discharge its statutory functions under this Act.”
“This amendment ensures that the principle is clearly embedded within this section of the Bill and aligned to the relevant provisions of the asylum procedures regulation. It is consistent with the other amendments. Amendment No. 268 reinforces the principle that we have consistently sought to embed in this legislation, namely, the best interests of the child. This amendment ensures that within this Part, decision-making in respect of minors is clearly guided by that obligation and it is aligned with Article 20 of the qualification regulation. It ensures coherence with EU law, provides clarity for those implementing the system and strengthens the legal basis for ensuring that children's rights are upheld in practice.”
“215 ensures that this principle is specifically linked to the part of the Bill that is aligned to Article 22 of the asylum procedures regulation. First, it ensures that our domestic legislation is consistent with EU standards and obligations. Second, it provides clarity to those implementing the law and that the child's welfare is not an afterthought but a consideration. It is particularly important in the context of international protection procedures, which can be complex and, at times, very difficult for children to navigate. By clearly embedding it, we will ensure that it applies across all relevant decision-making processes within this part. Amendment No. 262 reinforces the core principles.”
“Second, it strengthens the legal safeguards available to minors within the system by making it clear that their welfare is not secondary but central. Amendment No. 199 builds on the principle that we have already discussed, which is that the best interests of the child must the primary consideration. This amendment ensures that the principle is explicitly applied within this part of the Bill and that it is aligned with Article 23 of the asylum and migration management regulation. It ensures consistency between our domestic legislation and our obligation at EU level. It provides clarity for decision-makers operating within the system. It also ensures there is no ambiguity and that when procedures are being carried out with respect to a minor, the child's best interest is central to this. Amendment No.”
“As we know, many children who may come here will experience trauma, displacement, conflict and loss. Some may be unaccompanied minors arriving in the State without the protection or support of a parent or guardian. In those circumstances, the decisions made by the State can have a profound and lasting impact on their lives. This amendment ensures that the best interests of the child are explicitly recognised as the primary consideration during all the procedures carried out under this part of the legislation, including those linked to EU systems such as Eurodac. First, it provides a clear guidance for those responsible for implementing the legislation, ensuring that decisions are made with proper regard to those needs and vulnerable children.”
“For example, when it comes to things like multidisciplinary age assessments that must be conducted, they have to be fair and a multidisciplinary team has to be put in place for something like that. Without a clear statutory footing, there is always the risk that the needs of the child can become secondary within complex administrative systems. Amendment No. 34 builds on something that is not a new concept. It is a well-established principle in both Irish law and international law, most notably under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Ireland is a signatory. However, where legislation directly impacts vulnerable children, particularly within the international protection system, it is essential that this principle is not just implied but also is clearly stated.”
“I will speak briefly to amendments Nos. 30, 34, 199, 215, 262 and 268. Amendment No. 30 relates to the best interests of the child. This amendment is about placing a clear and explicit principle at the heart of this legislation, namely, that the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration in all matters concerning minors. While the principle is well recognised in international law and in broader child protection frameworks, it is essential that it is clearly reflected within this Bill. This amendment ensures that it is not implied but stated. It is also a clear obligation on the Minister to have due regard to this principle in all decisions and actions under this Bill relating to minors, which is important.”
“At the same time, we have to recognise that there are circumstances where intervention is necessary to protect public safety and this amendment strikes to seek that balance. It ensures that detention powers remain available where there is a genuine and evidenced risk but also places important limits to their use. It requires that decisions are based on documented history, reasonable grounds or a present risk, not on the assumption or the status and not on broad or undefined concerns. This is about ensuring a system that is fair, proportionate and grounded in evidence and protects both the State and the public as a whole.”
“That benefits not only the applicant but equally the system as a whole. Amendment No. 41 looks at detention as a last resort. It seeks to bring clarity and balance to the use of detention powers within the international protection system. It provides that arrests without warrant or detention of an applicant should be a measure of last resort and only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has a documented history of violent criminal offending or is a present danger to public security or public order, which would enhance oversight when it may come to deportation. This is about setting a clear and proportionate threshold. Detention is one of the most serious actions the State can take and it should not be used lightly or as a default.”
“I will speak briefly on amendments Nos. 39 and 41. Amendment No. 39 is quite straightforward. It ensures that applicants are clearly informed of two fundamental rights within their international protection process. These are the right to an appeals mechanism and the right to access legal representation, which are not extras in the system but rather core elements of the fairness we provide. The international protection process is complex and for many applicants it is unfamiliar and difficult to navigate. If an individual is not clearly informed of their right to appeal a decision or their right to access legal advice, then there is a real risk that those rights may not be exercised at all. This amendment simply ensures clarity. It makes it explicit that applicants must be informed of these rights at an early stage in the process.”
“Their needs may not be fully identified, their voice may not be properly heard and safeguards may not be picked up on early enough. We have seen that in other cases in the public service. When caseloads are unmanageable, the quality of care and support inevitably declines. This amendment is about preventing that from happening. It ensures the system is not only structured correctly on paper, but is capable of functioning effectively in practice.”
“The amendment provides that the Minister shall ensure the representatives are assigned caseloads that allow for the effective discharge of their functions. It also makes clear that a representative should not be assigned such a number of unaccompanied minors that it would undermine the welfare or the best interest of the child. The role of the representative is not a passive one - it involves engaging with the child, understanding their circumstances, supporting them through the process, advocating on their behalf and ensuring their rights are upheld. That requires time, attention and capacity. If a representative is responsible for too many children, that level of engagement simply cannot be maintained. When that happens, it is the child who suffers in the end.”
“This is a very practical issue within the international system but one that has a direct and very real impact on the welfare of unaccompanied minors. It deals with the assignment of caseloads to representatives. We have already discussed the importance of ensuring unaccompanied minors are appointed a representative. As I have said, those representatives need to be trained properly and safeguards need to be put in place. Again, we must look at the principle that goes beyond just appointing a representative for them and consider how the system operates in practice. Even when all those elements are in place, the system will not function effectively if representatives are assigned workloads they simply cannot manage.”
“If we are to ask children to place their trust in the State and in the individuals appointed to represent them, we must be able to stand over the quality and the integrity of these appointments. Equally, we must properly resource all of the other bodies that will potentially be representing minors, like Tusla, and have resourcing and accountability for the determining authority. I refer again to resourcing the Legal Aid Board properly and giving children the right to an interpreter and relevant representations to prevent any delays. This amendment ensures the screening and assessment procedures take into account the detection, protection and support needs of the child. Our final amendment, No. 114, is around the appropriate caseloads of representatives.”
“This amendment ensures those representatives are properly vetted, trained and qualified to carry out the role. It requires Garda vetting in line with existing legislation and it requires the representative to have the necessary qualifications and experience to effectively represent the interests of an unaccompanied minor. These are not excessive requirements; they are just basic safeguards. We would expect no less where individuals are working directly with vulnerable children. The amendment also makes clear that those standards apply regardless of any regulations made elsewhere. In other words, they are the baseline protection that cannot be diluted.”
“If we are placing children into a system where they must rely on appointed representatives to support and advocate for them, we must be certain those individuals are suitable for that role. Amendment No. 112 relates to minimum standards for representatives. It seeks to ensure those appointed to represent these unaccompanied minors meet clear, robust and consistent minimum standards. We have spoken about the representation of children within the international protection system, but representation is only as effective as the person who is providing it. When a child arrives in the State alone, the individual appointed to represent them plays a critical role not just as a procedure but in safeguarding their welfare and advocating for their best interests.”
“It requires an understanding of child protection, trauma-informed practices, cultural sensitivities and the complexity of the international protection process. Without proper training, there is a real risk that individuals may not be fully equipped to support a child or to identify potential safeguarding concerns. Regular training ensures the representative remains up to date, competent and capable of carrying out their responsibilities. Second, the amendment provides that no individual should be appointed as a provisional representative or as a representative where the person has a record of criminal offences concerning children. That is a fundamental safeguard.”
“At the core, the amendment is about ensuring individuals entrusted with supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our system are properly trained, suitable for the role and held to appropriate standards. We have already discussed the importance of appointing representatives for unaccompanied minors and doing so in a timely manner. Appointing them is not enough, however - we must also ensure those individuals are equipped to carry out the role effectively and, most importantly, safely. The amendment introduces two very specific requirements. First, it provides that representative organisations must ensure that individuals appointed as representatives receive regular training for the performance of their duties. That training is essential. Representing an unaccompanied minor is not a straightforward administrative role.”
“In other words, the child must not be left without protection at any stage. Importantly, the amendment makes clear that any failure to meet the three-day timeline does not prejudice the rights of the child. That is a crucial safeguard. A child should never suffer a disadvantage because of delays or failures within the system and this amendment is about setting that clear standard. On amendment No. 104, I understand the Minister is bringing in his own amendment in relation to the number of minors per representative. That is fine. Amendment No. 107 focuses on strengthening the safeguards around those appointed to act as representatives for unaccompanied minors within the international protection system.”
“This amendment recognises that timing actually matters. Delays in appointing a representative can leave a child in a position of uncertainty and vulnerability at the very earliest stages of their interaction with the system, precisely where support is needed the most. This amendment introduces a clear and responsible requirement. It provides that where a notification is made in respect of an unaccompanied minor, a representative must be appointed within three working days. It is not an excessive or burdensome requirement; it is just a basic safeguard. This amendment recognises that if we are serious about protecting children, early intervention has to be a priority and, in the interim period, the competent authority must take all the necessary measures to safeguard the welfare and best interests of the child.”
“I will deal with amendment No. 100 and amendments Nos. 104 to 114, inclusive. Amendment No. 100 addresses an important issue about the international protection system and the timely appointment of a representative for unaccompanied minors. Unaccompanied minors are among the most vulnerable individuals in the system. They arrive into the State without the support of a parent or a guardian and may have experienced trauma, displacement and significant instability before reaching Ireland. In those circumstances, the role of the representative is not optional but essential. A representative ensures that the child's rights are protected, that they are supported through what is a complex and unfamiliar system and process, and that decisions made in relation to their case are informed by the child's best interests.”
“We cannot continue to tolerate a two-tier system in healthcare. The people of Limerick and the mid-west deserve equal access, equal opportunity and equal hope.”
“It means that cancer patients in the mid-west have virtually no opportunity to access clinical trials. Accident and emergency access, dentistry and now access to clinical trials for cancer patients - how did we get to this point? I acknowledge the positive news that 43 acres in Raheen have been acquired by HSE Mid West and the steps that this coalition Government is taking to address the hospital facilities shortage at University Hospital Limerick, UHL. I am also calling on the Minister for Health to urgently address this cancer treatment imbalance. Access to clinical trials in Limerick could literally be the difference between life and death for some patients. I call on the Minister to ensure that this inequity is fully considered by the project board overseeing the new campus development at UHL on the recently acquired 43-acre site.”
“The current national cancer strategy sets a target of 6% of cancer patients participating in clinical trials. It is just not ambitious enough. We should be striving to meet the 10% target recommended by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes. The most shocking revelation at that committee was the stark geographical inequity in research funding. Between 2021 and 2026, approximately €10.8 million has been allocated to Dublin and the east while a mere €600,000 has been allocated to Limerick and the mid-west. I will say that again. Some €10.8 million has been allocated to Dublin and the east while a mere €600,000 has been allocated to Limerick and the mid-west. That is not a funding gap; it is a further example of healthcare discrimination for people living in Limerick and the mid-west.”
“I rise to highlight deeply concerning testimony given to the Oireachtas committee on higher education by Ms Angela Clayton-Lea, chief executive officer of Cancer Trials Ireland, and Dr. Veronica McInerney, programme manager. They made it clear that Ireland is facing a significant shortfall in clinical trials, which are not an optional extra but a vital component of modern cancer care. Clinical trials give patients earlier access to innovative and potentially life-saving treatments. They improve outcomes, drive the development of better therapies and ensure that our Irish clinicians remain connected to global advances in cancer care. They also attract investment into Ireland and strengthen our healthcare as a whole. Yet, despite these benefits, Ireland continues to lag behind comparable EU countries.”
“The Minister of State said: "While there is no dedicated scheme in place for the taking in charge of housing estates, local authorities may make provision for taking in charge as part of their annual budgetary process." Maybe there should be a scheme and perhaps the housing Minister could look at that because clearly Tanyard Wood is not an isolated case. There are other estates with the same issue.”
“I thank the Minister of State. I understand he is taking the Commencement matter on behalf of the Minister for housing and it is not his remit, but none of that response answers any part of the question I asked. The developer went into liquidation so the council had to step in. That was it. It is cut and dried. Clearly, the officials are currently in no man's land. Reaming off these Acts and so on does not make a difference to the people in Tanyard Wood. In reality, it does not. Neither the Minister of State nor I would want to live on an estate where no one is responsible for anything. It is just not feasible. What happened is that the developer went into liquidation so someone had to step in and Cork County Council did, but it is taking a long time and the funding is one of the core issues officials have.”
“They have waited almost ten years at this point. It is reaching a point where the estate is becoming dangerous. Something has to be done about it.”
“We need clear timelines. Interim measures are required to ensure residents are not left feeling unsafe or conditions are allowed to deteriorate while progress drags on. People bought homes in the area in good faith. They did not sign up to live in an estate with broken infrastructure, unclear lines of responsibility and ongoing safety risks. The ask today is simple. I ask the Minister of State to outline the additional funding and supports that will be provided to local authorities like Cork County Council to accelerate the taking in charge process. What measures can be put in place to ensure that estates like Tanyard Wood are not left waiting years for a resolution? At the heart of this are families, communities and people who want to live well and have nice homes and a nice area. That is not too much to ask.”
“This is not just happening in my area; it is also happening in other places where estates are not being taken in charge and, therefore, residents do not know who to call if something happens. They are left alone. Tanyard Wood is unique because nobody has taken charge of the estate for ten years. As I said, local authorities are doing their best, but the reality is they do not have the funding, staffing or resources to progress these estates. We are asking councils to do snag lists and surveys. Uisce Éireann will take charge of part of the works, but in the interim between now and when the council takes charge, who will take care of the maintenance? What happens if somebody falls? Who will take care of that? The residents are not asking for much. People bought their houses and expect to live in a place where the bare minimum has been done.”
“By 2007, the developer had gone bust and therefore, Cork County Council submitted an appeal to take charge of the estate. It has been almost ten years and it still has not taken charge of the estate. It sits in no man's land. The estate has not been maintained. No proper maintenance at all is happening. It is up to a residents' association to do that work, which is ad hoc because it is not solidified. I have been in the estate. The footpaths are broken, overgrowth is everywhere, there are potholes and there is no adequate signage to state that children are playing. It is a large estate with families. People bought houses and there are also some social houses in the area. This is not the fault of Cork County Council because I have worked with it and it has been forthcoming about the situation. The problem is that it does not have funding.”
“I am here to talk about increasing funding and resources for local authorities to take housing estates in charge. I want to highlight a case in my town, Millstreet, namely, Tanyard Wood. It is the largest housing estate in County Cork that has not been taken in charge. In 2007, the council lodged an appeal to take charge of the estate because the developer went bust. It has been almost ten years and nobody has taken charge of the estate. Tanyard Wood sits in no man's land at the moment. If a child or elderly person falls on the estate-----”
“I hope this Bill progresses and we can have constructive discussions about what best protects workers while also maintaining the principles that underpin our criminal justice system.”
“While I recognise the motivation behind this Bill and the concerns it seeks to address, I believe the approach taken here is not the most effective way of tackling the problem. Instead, we should broaden the conversation and ask what practical measures can be introduced to prevent tool theft in the first place. We should examine how stolen equipment is being resold and we should ensure that workers who fall victim to these crimes are properly supported. When someone loses the tools of their trade, he or she is not just losing equipment; he or she is losing his or her ability to work. That deserves a response from the justice system that is thoughtful, effective and grounded in evidence.”
“Courts already have powers to impose substantial custodial sentences for serious theft and burglary offences. Judges are already able to consider the impact of the crime on a victim's livelihood when determining an appropriate sentence. I also think it is important that we frame the debate carefully because supporting workers and tradespeople does not mean abandoning principles that underpin our fair justice system. Judicial discretion exists for a reason, and it ensures that sentencing can be proportionate, balanced and tailored to the circumstance of each case. Removing that discretion risks creating a more rigid system that does not necessarily deliver better outcomes for the victims or society.”
“That kind of rigidity can produce outcomes that do not fit the circumstances in the case. Second, there is little evidence internationally that mandatory sentencing actually deters crime. Property crimes such as theft are often opportunistic. Sometimes they are driven by addiction, financial desperation or are carried out by organised criminal networks. In those situations, the severity of the sentence is far less influential than the likelihood of actually being caught. If we want to tackle the thefts effectively we have to focus on detection, enforcement and prevention, and not just sentencing. Stolen tools can be moved quickly across the country and across borders and resold through online markets and informal networks. That is the reality of how this crime works.”
“When people see damage caused by tool theft, their instinct is to say the penalties must be increased. However, we must be honest about what will reduce crime and what will not. The key issue with the Bill at the moment is the introduction of mandatory sentencing. Ireland's justice system has traditionally relied on judicial discretion, and mandatory sentencing removes that discretion. That is a significant shift in Irish criminal justice policy and is not something we should introduce lightly. First, it risks introducing disproportionate outcomes. Under the Bill, someone convicted of theft involving work equipment could face a minimum sentence of three years' imprisonment regardless of factors such as the value of the equipment, whether the person played a minor role or whether the tools were actually recovered.”
“I acknowledge the intent behind this Bill. The theft of tools and work equipment is a serious issue affecting workers, tradespeople, farmers and small businesses across the country. As Senator P. J. Murphy pointed out, these tools are not simply possessions but livelihoods. Anyone who has spoken to tradespeople knows how devastating that can be. The Bill before us seeks to amend the criminal justice Act 2001 to introduce mandatory sentencing provisions for offences involving the theft of work equipment used in the course of a person's employment. It proposes that where a person is convicted of theft-related offences involving work equipment, which prevents the owner from carrying out their employment, the court must impose a sentence of no less than 36 months' imprisonment. At first glance it looks attractive.”
“I move amendment No. 12: In page 20, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “ “legal counselling” means oral or written legal advice from a practising solicitor or barrister, or a person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide legal advice or representation;”.”
“The likelihood is that counselling is going to be given by the Legal Aid Board, but that is not set in stone. That is what the Minister is saying. There could be a case where the advice does not come from somebody from the Legal Aid Board.”
“I want to ask about a similar point relating to amendment No. 12, which we have tabled, around defining "legal counselling" as to be provided by the Legal Aid Board. It speaks to Senator Keogan's question about who is qualified to do that. We have provided in the amendment that it must be somebody who gives oral or written advice and that person must be a practising solicitor or barrister, or person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide that counselling. I seek clarity on that.”
“(3) The Government shall consult with relevant Departments, agencies, and stakeholders, including those with responsibility for immigration control, border management, and CTA coordination. (4) An assessment prepared under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas not later than 12 months after the commencement of this section, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding three years.”.”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 16, after line 33, to insert the following: “Assessment of Common Travel Area impacts 2. (1) The Government shall prepare and publish an assessment of the potential and actual impacts on the Common Travel Area arising from the operation of this Act. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) shall include— (a) analysis of any implications for the movement of persons between the State and Britain, (b) consideration of the effect of international protection procedures on CTA integrity and cooperation, (c) evaluation of any risks of displacement or diversion effects within the CTA, and (d) measures proposed to mitigate identified impacts.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 16, after line 33, to insert the following: “Annual report on sovereignty and external obligations 2. (1) The Minister shall, not later than 31 March each year, lay before the Oireachtas a report detailing: (a) the extent to which the State’s international protection system remains under domestic control; (b) obligations arising from EU or international agreements during the preceding year; (c) steps taken to ensure that Irish sovereignty and democratic oversight are maintained. (2) The report shall be referred to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice for consideration.”.”
“That assessment would include analysis of the movement of persons between Ireland and Britain, consideration of the effect of international protection procedures on co-operation within the common travel area, and the evaluation of potential displacement effects within the system. It would also require consultation with relevant Departments and agencies responsible for immigration control and border management. Given the importance of the common travel area to Ireland's migration framework, this type of analysis should have been undertaken before the Government even decided to opt into the pact. This amendment simply seeks to ensure that is carried out.”
“It is a central element of Ireland's immigration system, yet the Government has opted in to the EU migration pact without conducting a detailed assessment of how the new procedures and obligations will interact with that agreement. Ministers themselves have repeatedly stated that a significant proportion of international protection applicants arrive in Ireland through Britain. If that is the case, then the relationship between the EU migration framework and the common travel area becomes critically important. This amendment requires the Government to prepare and publish an assessment of the potential and actual impacts of this Act on the common travel area.”
“Given the scale of the changes introduced through the EU migration pact, such transparency is even more important than ever. This amendment would allow committees to examine the implications of these obligations and then ensure the Oireachtas remains actively engaged in oversight of how the system operates. Amendment No. 5 deals with what we believe is one of the most striking omissions in this legislation, namely, the absence of any comprehensive analysis of how the new asylum framework will interact with the common travel area. The common travel area is a long-standing agreement that allows for free movement between two jurisdictions.”