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 2 of 12.
“However, what has been lacking from the Government's approach is transparency in how these obligations may evolve over time or how they may affect Ireland's legislative autonomy. This amendment will require the Minister to lay an annual report before the Oireachtas outlining three key issues: first, the extent to which Ireland's international protection system remains under domestic control; second, the obligation that arises from the EU or international agreements during the preceding year; and third, the steps taken by the Government to ensure what Irish sovereignty and democratic oversight are maintained. Such reporting mechanisms are not unusual. In many policy areas where the State operates within the international framework, regular reporting ensures the Oireachtas remains informed and able to exercise oversight.”
“What it does is reaffirm a basic democratic pipeline that the authority to determine immigration and international protection policy rests within the Irish State and is exercised through the Oireachtas. It ensures that nothing in this legislation can be interpreted as delegating that authority to any external institution unless the Oireachtas explicitly approves such a decision through primary legislation. In other words, this amendment protects democratic oversight. Amendment No. 4 builds on the previous amendment by introducing a mechanism for transparency and parliamentary oversight. Like I said, the Government chose to opt in to the EU migration and asylum pact, a framework that will shape the operation of our international protection system for years to come.”
“That safeguard exists specifically to ensure that Ireland can retain control over policy decisions in the areas of freedom, security and justice where necessary. Despite this safeguard, the Government chose to opt in to the pact entirely. Sinn Féin opposed these decisions because we believe Ireland must retain the ability to shape migration policy in a way that reflects our own circumstances and legal framework. Ireland is not in the same position as any other EU member states. We are an island nation. We share the common travel area with Britain and our migration system operates within a unique legal and geographical context. The amendment does not attempt to reverse the Government's decision to opt in to the pact.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 16, after line 33, to insert the following: “Sovereignty of State in matters of international protection 2. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the sovereign authority of the State, exercised through the Oireachtas, to determine policy in respect of immigration and international protection. (2) No provision of this Act shall be interpreted as delegating such authority to any external body or institution without the express approval of the Oireachtas by primary legislation.”. I will speak to amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together. Amendment No. 3 addresses the issue of sovereignty in relation to the immigration and international protection policy. Ireland did have the option, under Protocol No. 21, to opt out of elements of the EU migration and asylum pact.”
“The Bill also has to specify the calculation of the share of the individual performers would be carried out by a licensing body for performers' rights with the necessary credentials. In the event there is more than one such body and they cannot agree which one will carry out the calculations, the controller can designate the body to conduct the role. It is not appropriate that all performers would be compelled to go to the Circuit Court to dispute this. In cases where a performer is in dispute with a major record label, there is a very real danger the performer will just not follow through or pursue it because of the resources they are limited to in comparison with a massive label. It is not a fair or equitable measure and I ask the Minister of State to again review the amendments to ensure a level playing field for all of the performers.”
“I echo what Senator McDowell said. It seems the Bill intends for revenues to be split twice, resulting in only a 25% share going to the performer, which simply is not fair. As we all know, Ireland has exported its music and songs all over the world. We are renowned for the quality of the performers we have. Surely, we do not want to devalue their contribution or the importance of the overall arts we offer. The Bill also looks at the need to recognise the importance of the collective management organisations, CMOs. It is entirely appropriate for CMOs, which are registered with the Controller of Intellectual Property, to act on behalf of the performer in cases where this is what the performer prefers.”
“The Bill before the House proposes to amend the equitable remuneration provision by providing that "equitable remuneration less reasonable collecting costs shall be shared equally as between a performer and an owner of the copyright in a sound recording." We support both of the amendments, but we definitely support Senator McDowell’s amendment on this occasion. We hope the Government does the same.”
“Yes. I support the amendment before the House, which has been tabled by Senators McDowell and Joe Conway. We have a number of concerns around this Bill. It represents fairness for performers on distribution of earnings. We support Senator McDowell’s amendment around this. The principal Act states: A performer has a right to equitable remuneration from the owner of the copyright in a sound recording where the sound recording ... is— (a) played in public, or (b) included in a broadcast or cable programme service.”
“I welcome the Minister of State to the Seanad. I am sure he has reflected on the Second Stage discussion that took place in the Chamber on this Bill last week. I hope he will accept the amendments proposed today. My colleague, Senator Conor Murphy, spoke to this Bill during last week's debate, but as he is unavailable this evening I will make the Committee Stage remarks on behalf of Sinn Féin. I speak in support of Senator Black's amendments. Senator Black has years of experience in the industry. She made some excellent points during the debate on Second Stage last week.”
“Before we move on to our next speaker, I welcome to the Public Gallery, Miriam Fletcher, David Murphy, Maureen Murphy, Angela Murphy, Jennifer Murphy, Karen Wilds and Kaye O'Loughlin who are guests of Brigid McGlynn from the Office of the Secretary General. They are most welcome to the House and I hope they enjoy their evening.”
“The issue is that we are saying that we want kids to have the education and all the supports, yet we are silently undermining all of that by removing the mainstream SNAs into a different post. That is not valuing our SNAs, or they work that they do. They do critical work. Every single one of us knows the work that they do. They go above and beyond for each child. They nurture the child. It does not just impact the children who have the additional needs in the classroom. It impacts the whole classroom. All the children will suffer. What happens now to the schools that appealed? Are their appeals going to go through, are they paused or are they going to be reinstated back into the class?”
“I thank the Minister of State. I hear what he is saying, but when the Taoiseach himself says that schools are used to appealing, it should not have to get to that point. Schools should not have to appeal these decisions. What happens to those appeals now while it is paused? Are they going to go through? Are those SNAs still going to be in the schools in the mainstream classes? That is the issue. The schools need SNAs. They need SNAs in the ASD classes, but also in the mainstream classes. It should not get to this point where the parents and the whole community are so outraged that they put so much pressure on the Government. Thank God they did because this would not have stopped at all. There would have been no pause had this not been so opposed by parents and across the whole of Ireland.”
“Parents, teachers and schools need proper, clear answers. They are the ones who know how the children act. They know the children inside and out. Yet, when the special educational needs organisers, SENOs, come in, they do not listen to that. Clearly, this is a decision from the top down. What is the reason for the pause? I hope I get an answer to that question.”
“Furthermore, under the Equal Status Act, schools must provide reasonable accommodation to prevent substantial disadvantage to pupils with disabilities. Where children require supervision or behavioural regulation, an SNA is not optional; an SNA is part of a reasonable accommodation. I do not know how this decision came about, but the pause does not mean anything because there is no plan for that pause. Parents, teachers, SNAs and schools want to know a few things, and it is not unreasonable to ask those questions. What does the pause actually mean? Will the SNAs be put back into the mainstream? What is the deployment plan? We mentioned that an additional 1,700 SNAs are to be delivered. When is that going to happen? If I sit down now and get a load of waffle that is not going to answer these questions, it is not good enough.”
“These are the policies of the members of the Government. They are in government. These are the decisions they are making. Since we are talking about policy, I would like to refresh the House’s memory that the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act of 2004 established the principle of inclusive education and requires that children with special educational needs receive education appropriate to their needs and abilities. Children’s needs do not change when they change class. Children's needs are constantly there. We are trying to give them the best start in life. What we are doing is undermining the system and undermining parents. We are not listening to the parents, teachers or SNAs who are working with them every single day.”
“However, families have been told that their children cannot be considered for placements because the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, application portal closed on 1 October 2025, more than three months before the class actually existed. That shows how the Government treats young children in our society at the moment. A pause does not mean that the anxiety of the parents, the schools or the teachers has gone away. It is still very much there. What does that pause actually mean for people? Will the SNAs who got letters that they were to be redeployed be reinstated? There is no redeployment strategy. Kids are missing school. I have heard from many schools. The Minister of State is from my constituency. He knows the scale of the story, and the scale of what is happening in our constituency and even beyond that. It is ridiculous.”
“I welcome the Minister of State. I am glad he is here to take this matter. I am convinced that every week the Government meets and decides what fresh hell it can inflict on people and how it can undermine the most vulnerable in our society. The Minister of State is no stranger to the issue of SNAs. A pause was put on, but that pause does not mean a stop. A couple of weeks ago, many autism spectrum disorder, ASD, classes were open. It was fantastic that they were open, and nobody is disputing that. This is the way the Government treats them. An article in the Connacht Tribune last week stated that an ASD class for Creagh National School in east Galway was formally approved and given sanction on 12 January last.”
“I will work with the Minister and her Department - no problem - in addressing the gaps in this legislation. Like I said, it is not perfect but it is a mechanism we can now highlight and look at to say these are massive gaps in our legislative processes and we need to fix them, and fix them fast. While it does not affect a lot of people, it still affects women out there. It affects families. Loss is a thing that is forever; you never get over it. You just learn to live with it. I am disappointed but the work continues. I thank all Senators for contributing to the debate.”
“If we are telling people how they should be living and grieving and we are telling what is acknowledged and not acknowledged in law, that is not a society that anybody wants to live in. It is disappointing but it does not stop the work from continuing. I am glad that pregnancy loss and miscarriage leave is being looked at but I want to clarify that is not the same as this Bill. That argument does not really stand because pregnancy loss, miscarriage and bereavement after your child is born are different things. Like I said, it opens the wider discussion on why we do not have statutory bereavement leave. That is a massive flaw and gap in legislation. I thank all the Senators across the House who contributed to this debate. I really appreciate it.”
“In the cross-party group, which many Senators and TDs are on, we have been working really hard with the Department. I can work with the Department no problem but it is that timed amendment and the length of time. The woman who inspired this Bill is sitting at home watching this and it is another barrier or stab to the heart for her because she has lost that child. Nothing will bring that child back for her. She knows this legislation does not apply to her and never will, but there are others this could apply to. It is compassionate policy because if we are legislators, we need to take on board the people we represent. We need to take on board their lived experience, which are the most powerful thing. If we have policies that do not reflect the lived experience of people, then what is the point?”
“I really acknowledge the work that has been going on in Departments around pregnancy loss and miscarriage but we cannot lump that together. That is very dangerous because the contributions from the Government side have been around miscarriage and pregnancy loss. That is separate to having a dying child in your arms. It is separate to giving birth and one of your other children dying. It is not the same thing and this Bill is not looking at pregnancy loss and miscarriage. I have a Bill that is already looking at that. This is looking at a situation where if I was to give birth to my child and that child died, or if I already had existing children and they died, I could postpone my leave. That is what it is asking for. It is great the Government has now gone on record in committing to pregnancy loss legislation and advancing that.”
“I thank the Acting Chair and everybody for contributing to the debate. It is great that we are having debates on these topics in the Seanad. This Bill has highlighted two fundamental gaps in our legislation and really highlighted the problem whereby we do not have statutory bereavement leave. It is very evident. I recognise the Minister said that there were all these issues. This Bill was never perfect. If I brought in perfect legislation, I probably would not be here, to be honest. That is what Committee Stage is for and what all the Stages of the Bill are always for. What is the point of Committee Stage or any of these Stages if we are constantly getting timed amendments? Eighteen months is a long time but it is not the first Bill I have a had a timed amendment on.”
“If it is being lumped in with pregnancy loss and miscarriage leave, these are three different things altogether. I would like to have clarification on that. I am very disappointed, to be honest. This afternoon, we had such a nice, powerful debate on maternal mental health supports, yet here, the Government is asking for deferment for a year and a half on something so simple. There is no cost. It is a cut and dry amendment that already exists in the legislation. We are just extending it to bereavement leave.”
“Can I get the rationale as to why there will be a deferment for 18 months as opposed to six or 12 months? The rationale given is that the Government needs to examine the issues raised in this Bill alongside existing work to develop legislative proposals for pregnancy loss and miscarriage leave. This is the first time it is being spoken out loud in the House that the Government is looking at pregnancy loss and miscarriage leave. However, I know this was taken out of the Minister, Deputy Foley's, Department and put into the Department of enterprise. This Bill is not talking about pregnancy loss. It is talking about the loss of a child after they are born. Can we have clarity on that point? Has the Bill been read properly by the Department and the Government?”
“We tell them that their loss is an inconvenience. We tell them that their pain does not fit neatly into our rules to be recognised. We talk often in this House about family-friendly policies, supporting parents, mental health, dignity and compassion. This Bill turns those words into action. No parent should ever have to be told that they cannot grieve their own child because they are already on leave. No mother should ever again feel that her loss is being weighed, balanced or diminished by the existence of another child. We cannot undo the tragedy that led to this Bill being drafted, but we can ensure that no other family is treated with the same coldness by our system. An amendment to this legislation has been brought forward by the Government. I have two clarifying questions. The amendment is for 18 months.”
“It recognises that maternity leave and bereavement are not the same thing. It recognises that grief does not pause simply because a newborn still needs care. It recognises that the law must reflect lived reality, not just bureaucratic convenience. Importantly, this principle exists in our legislation. We already allow for the postponement of maternity leave in cases of serious illness. We already accept that there are circumstances so overwhelming that the normal structure of leave must bend to human reality. This Bill simply extends the exact same compassion to parents whose lives are shattered by the death of a child. It is tightly drafted, modest in scope and grounded entirely in lived experience, but its impact can be profound. What message do we send if we choose not to act? We tell grieving parents that the system cannot see them.”
“Knowing that, I cannot begin to imagine the depth of pain involved in losing a child and how it fractures a mother's sense of safety, identity and future. I cannot imagine waking up each day, carrying the loss, while still being expected to function as though nothing had fundamentally changed in my life. I hope with every part of me that I never know a loss like that. What I do know is this. No mother experiencing the death of a child should have to be met with rigidity, silence and indifference from the State. The Bill does one simple, humane and necessary thing. It allows a mother to pause or defer her maternity leave in the event of the death of a child, and to resume that leave at a later date, when she is better able to care for herself, her baby and her family.”
“It forced a mother, in the immediate aftermath of an unimaginable trauma, to remain on a form of leave that did not recognise what had happened to her emotionally, psychologically and physically. It sends a clear message that the system could not hold her grief. That is why this Bill matters. Before I go any further in this debate, I want to be clear and honest. I do not know what is like to lose a child, but I have known close loss. I know how much grief is not something that just passes. It is not something that you can just move on from. Grief is ever-encompassing. It settles in every corner of your life. It changes how you see the world, how you relate to people and how you carry yourself through every single day. It does not disappear. It evolves. It reshapes you, and it becomes part of who you are.”
“Because she was already on maternity leave, she was told she could not take bereavement leave. She was also told that she could not defer, pause or postpone her maternity leave, so while everyone else in her family - her partner, her relatives and her loved ones - were able to take time off away from work to grieve the tragic loss of her child, she was not able to take bereavement leave for herself. In the eyes of the system, her living baby was weighed against her child who had died, as if one cancelled out the other one, as if maternity leave, which exists to allow a mother to take care of a newborn, could somehow be expected to carry the unbearable weight of child bereavement. That is cruelty embedded in policy.”
“She was on maternity leave following the birth of her second daughter, who was just four and a half months old. Like so many families at that stage of life, things were busy and tiring, but full of love, and life was ordinary in the best possible way. Then, all of a sudden, everything had changed for her. Her older daughter became ill, and in the space of a very short time, she passed away. There are no words that can properly capture the death of a child. It is a loss that defies explanation, logic and language. It turns a family’s world upside down in an instant, and nothing is ever the same again. This woman is a teacher. Under the circular, she was not entitled to four weeks of bereavement leave following the death of her own child. Here is where the system showed its coldest edge.”
“I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” I wish to share time with Senator McCormack. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Norma Foley. This Bill exists because at one of the most devastating moments imaginable, our system failed a mother. The Bill was not born out of theory or abstract policy discussion. It is not something dreamed up in an office or drafted in isolation. It exists because of a real woman, a real family and a loss are so profound that no parent should have to endure it. I worked closely with the Irish National Teachers Organisation, INTO, in bringing this legislation forward. It was through that engagement that I first heard the story that inspired this Bill. I later spoke directly with the woman herself. I can say without hesitation that I was heartbroken listening to what she had been put through.”
“Studies from England show that the rates of postnatal depression in the second year after birth are almost identical to the first year. One study found a prevalence of 15% between 13 and 24 months post partum. The strongest risk factor of all is mental illness in the first year. It is great that we are having this debate. We need more supports and they must be provided for longer. We must think about the long term and consider how we can support women to thrive. Postnatal mental health cannot be treated as a short-term issue because it is not. It cannot be treated as disconnected from pregnancy loss, the trauma that we face and prior mental ill health. This motion is the reality and recognises that, and ensures that women are supported not just to survive pregnancy in birth but to recover, parent and thrive.”
“It is fantastic that the Government is putting money into this because it is so needed for many of us. Women are expected to have babies, carry on, contribute to society, be superwomen, go to work, keep the household running and all of this kind of stuff with the bare minimum of support and the minimum understanding that they are not only carrying all those burdens but that during pregnancy and the transference period, their identity is changing. Women are becoming mothers and taking on new lives and the responsibility of having a living thing that is not a dog in their vicinity. They have children to take care of and shape how they see the world. That is immense pressure for women. It is great that there is more funding and research. We need that continuously in this space.”
“I got to 12 weeks and the next thing I was worried about was getting to my next scan, my next appointment. When I got to 23 weeks, my first thought was not, "Wow, I got through the anatomy scan" or "This child is now viable." My first thought was that in the eyes of the State, this pregnancy now mattered and if something were to go wrong, I would get time off and a certificate, which I did not have the first time. Even though I am now allowing myself to feel the joy somewhat, I still worry every single day. Every day, I have to manage myself and my anxiety levels. I cannot even think about the birth because I am already thinking about what if I get postnatal depression afterward. How am I going to support myself? Who is going to support me through this?”
“Any time I was at home, I did not want to go out because I feared that me walking around would do something to harm the pregnancy. I retreated into myself. I stopped talking to people or interacting with anybody. My partner became worried about me so I became worried about myself. It was not normal behaviour for me. I reached out and contacted the mental health department of Cork University Maternity Hospital, CUMH. I did even know that CUMH had a mental health team. From the minute I contacted them, they were amazing. I cannot fault them. I had midwives checking in with me every few days. They would call or text me to see how I was doing before I was able to see a pregnancy loss specialist therapist to help me. Every week was a challenge and a hurdle.”
“What I did not understand or realise was that when I initially had my miscarriage in 2024, that miscarriage would not just take the pregnancy that I had but would take the joy out of the pregnancy that was to come. When I found out I was pregnant, I did not feel joy and happiness and all the lovely feelings you are supposed to feel. I felt instant fear, dread and anxiety from the moment I tested. I took about 30 tests in the first two weeks because what my body was preparing me for was the worst-case scenario, because that was all it knew during my first pregnancy. I struggled hard with my mental health and was not aware of what was happening. Between all the symptoms that you have in the first trimester and balancing work and pregnancy, and just being so afraid of what would happen, I started to retreat.”
“Research published in The Lancet miscarriage series shows that women who experience miscarriage have 2.4 to 2.8 times higher odds of depression and four times the odds of post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, compared with those who have not experienced a loss. A large cohort study following women after miscarriage found that nearly one in five met the criteria for PTSD nine months later, with significant levels of anxiety and depression still present to this day. I do not know if many people in the Houses know, but I am currently pregnant. It is my second pregnancy. I am six months into this journey. I found out very early in my pregnancy that I was pregnant.”
“I welcome the Minister of State. I thank Senator Cosgrove and the Cross-Party Group for bringing forward this motion. Anything to talk about women's health is mo ghrá. We are here to discuss postnatal mental health but we cannot do that honestly without recognising that for many women, mental health challenges do not begin at birth. They begin much earlier, often after loss, trauma and complicated pregnancies. Irish and international research consistently shows that prior history of mental ill health is one of the strongest predictors of postnatal mental health difficulties. More recent Irish survey data confirms that women with previous mental health diagnoses or those who experience high risk or complicated pregnancies report significantly higher levels of anxiety after birth. The evidence is incredibly stark.”
“It just beggars belief. This is about children and whether we are supporting them to thrive or letting them struggle. Right now, a whole lot of children and families, especially in my area but across the board, are struggling and crying out for supports. I have been inundated with emails. This needs to be looked at immediately.”
“It is certainly not supporting the children we claim to be supporting. I have spoken to the Minister of State, Deputy Moynihan, on this issue and he has indicated a willingness to engage, which I welcome, but that engagement has to lead to action. Schools should not have to feel threatened for appealing decisions and parents should not have to fight every single year for basic supports. Principals should not be left managing fear instead of actual resources. We need transparency on how SNA allocations are being reviewed. We need proper staffing models that reflect the real needs of mainstream settings as well as special needs settings. We need immediate assurance that schools that appeal will not be subject to punitive reductions. It is ridiculous that schools are afraid to appeal a decision in case they lose more SNAs.”
“I refer to children with learning difficulties, children with Down's syndrome, children who have diagnoses but are not in special classes, and children waiting years for assessments because the system cannot provide them for them and, therefore, they cannot access the supports they actually need. These children are being squeezed out and it is happening in all of our constituencies. Members in this House will know that. Opening special classes without ensuring adequate staffing levels across the board is not a solution; it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is giving with one hand and taking with the other. Schools are being told to absorb growing complexity, increased diagnosis and larger needs with fewer adults in the classroom. That is not inclusion; it is not fairness at all.”
“When they gathered their documentation for the review, they were warned that if they appealed, they could risk losing more SNAs and were told, essentially, to make do with what they have. Imagine being a school leader or principal advocating for children and being made to feel that seeking fairness could make things a whole lot worse. We are now in a position where unless a child is categorised as level 3, meaning he or she has severe medical, toileting or feeding needs, he or she is unlikely to qualify for SNA support. However, what about children who need support every single day in a mainstream classroom?”
“I want to raise a very serious issue regarding special needs assistants, SNAs, and the reality unfolding in our schools across the country. The new opening of special classes is needed and is very welcome. Families have fought long and hard for appropriate school places and additional provisions. What is currently happening, however, is deeply concerning. While Government Members pat themselves on the back for announcing new special classes, mainstream classrooms are being quietly stripped away. In my constituency, Cork North-West, there are now three schools and counting - Bweeng, Ballyhass and Kilmurry. I spoke to the principal this morning, and she told me something really concerning. They are almost wary of appealing the decision.”
“As the Minister knows, patients, clinicians and communities deserve a health service that is modern, connected, safe, accountable and that does actually have the potential to really save lives properly.”
“I think, for instance, of Carna in Connemara, where the infrastructure is rural, the Internet may not be fully there or it is not really accessible. All those kinds of things can be hashed out. We also need to move beyond the fear that has paralysed progress for years, which is that past failures cannot be excuses for permanent inaction. Other countries have learned and moved forward, and Ireland has stalled, and patients have paid the price as a result. We welcome this legislation because it is a great starting point. However, it is not the whole success story. I know the Minister is going to be working towards that, and we will all work with her in this House to achieve that.”
“Clinicians have consistently told us that a lack of access means delays in diagnosis and treatment for people and sometimes things are missed altogether. That is why electronic health records are very transformative. Primary care and community care are also significantly behind in some areas. Despite the commitments, progress in recent years has been very slow. I will ask the Minister two questions to clarify the position. She might not be able to answer them today but we can hash it out on Committee Stage. I assume there is going to be a concrete, funded plan for integration and perhaps a potential timeline for when the Minister expects it to happen. How will community providers, specifically GPs, be supported to connect and integrate into the system, especially in very remote areas?”
“What is being proposed is important but it is not the full electronic record system. It is limited in what it can do. We still do not have a fully integrated financial management system across the health service. As the Minister mentioned in her opening statement, waiting lists remain fragmented. The Minister is aware that data is powerful. When clinicians have access to accurate shared information, it provides for quick decision-making and patient outcomes. When data is not collected and not shared or not trusted, the entire system suffers. It makes no sense that GPs, community services and hospitals cannot fully integrate patient care, access complete records or see the whole picture of a person's health needs.”
“I welcome the Minister. We in Sinn Féin support this Bill. We support it because digital health records are not optional, they are fundamental to patient safety, accountability and the delivery of a modern health service. Accessible, integrated patient records are at the core of enabling better healthcare outcomes. However, supporting the Bill does not mean ignoring the context in which it arrived, because it is now 2026 and the Government is only reaching the starting gate for a digital transformation of the health service. We see this failure constantly in our work. As legislators, we table parliamentary questions and are told - sometimes time and time again - that the HSE perhaps does not capture the data; sometimes it does not hold the data; or that the systems are simply not there. That can be frustrating.”
“We are delighted that he brought this forward and thank him for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter. Long may support last across the Houses for Opposition Bills and motions.”
“People have given so much. The did the right thing, paid their taxes and hoped to retire and have fulfilling lives. It is not fair, at that point in their lives, to then have to worry about choosing between a vaccine and developing shingles, which could potentially end their lives, among other things. We should make it as easy as possible for people as they go into the final stages of their lives and beyond. What the motion is calling for is not impossible. It calls for something reasonable, targeted and evidence-based. It is about fairness, listening to expert advice and ensuring that older people in our State are not left to suffer preventable pain simply because they cannot afford protection. We are glad to hear that the Government is supporting Senator Conway and his group.”