Patricia Stephenson
Labour Panel · Social Democrats · Ireland
“A number of us on this side of the House have concerns around what this is opening us up to. We are concerned that we do not have the correct protections and safeguards in place to ensure that the supply will be State-owned and State-led because it is not included in the definitions in the legislation.”
“The world is literally on fire in some places. We have a forest fire in Ireland for the first time in years perhaps. I know we sometimes have them in the Mourne Mountains in the North. This is cause for concern, not just for future generations but for us today.”
“I thank the Minister for coming in. This is a really positive step. I am delighted she is pushing it forward. By and large, the oral contraceptive is incredibly safe. A lot of well-studied medicines are available. Over-the-counter oral contraception has been recommended by the WHO since 2019.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 7, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “ “emergency” means a situation where the State is experiencing a significant and protracted physical disruption of gas supply, or other catastrophic deterioration of the supply situation, and where— (a) all relevant market-based measures have been fully…”
“The Department has stated this facility "will provide the resilience required to support our energy transition" and that "the reserve will only be used in genuine emergencies", yet there is no definition in this Bill of what the Government means by an emergency and when that would apply.”
“We also have to be mindful of the burden it will place on pharmacists without the correct resourcing for pharmacies to deliver the scheme to safeguard against them withdrawing from this or any future scheme simply because they feel they do not have the resources to deliver it in a timely manner.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,369 lines we hold for Patricia Stephenson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 28.
“These would be just as effective, more humane and less costly and put less pressures on the systems. I will also speak to amendment No. 53, which was also ruled out of order. I will not spend long on it, but again, this is about people with special reception needs, namely, people with disabilities, pregnant women, older people and children. Again, this was ruled out of order because of the cost it would incur. The idea that people with very specific needs would not be catered for is a human rights violation, potentially. We should not be downgrading any of the provisions that we would be offering these groups.”
“Obviously we have a massive issue with overcrowding in prisons, as the Minister will be well aware, in the Dóchas Centre prison in particular. Recently, there was a story about the high levels of overcrowding there. I visited it last September and I heard from prison officials that the challenges with the beds is the number of people being detained on their way to deportation and the significant impact that is then having on other prisoners and their ability in terms of rehabilitation and getting the right access to supports and resources so that they are not in the continuous cycle of recidivism. There are alternatives to coerced detention. We could have regular check-ins with gardaí, requiring an applicant to stay in a particular location.”
“Repeated calls to Tusla never got any further than that and we cannot allow such treatment of children and that is why this amendment was put forward. I recognise that it has been ruled out of order but this idea of having appropriate accommodation for children who are in detention is so crucial. The idea that we would not have it is shocking. On amendment No. 50, I will talk again about my concern about the normalisation of detention as the best way to manage challenges with asylum seekers. I find it astonishing that there is no other option and that we are just going straight with detention. We are looking at harsh punishments as a first resort instead of a last resort. It risks criminalising asylum seekers. These are people who have a legitimate right under international law to seek asylum when fleeing war, abuse or persecution.”
“This was about suitable accommodation, specifically for minors, and because we are concerned that the Bill's power to detain any applicant who may be the parent or guardian of a minor. There are no measures laid out to make accommodations for the safeguarding of the child in that case other than to contact child and family agencies. I am sure many people here are aware of the story of Peter, a 14-year-old who was placed in a horrendous Tusla-run special care arrangement situation. He was left alone to sleep on a soiled mattress. There was no food for him to eat and no one to make sure he went to school. There were inadequate hygiene facilities and three adult strangers in the accommodation with him.”
“It prioritises detention and the forced movement of people to screening centres, thereby overriding the rights of people with special reception needs in particular, such as people with disabilities, elderly people, pregnant people, families and perhaps people who have been victims of rape, torture or other forms of sexual violence and violence in general. Being forced into a detention centre could have hugely retraumatising impacts. On amendment No. 47, which was ruled out of order, I am going to speak about it briefly. It was ruled out of order simply because of the cost. Everything could potentially be interpreted as having a cost, so it obviously makes our abilities to put forward good amendments quite limiting in many instances.”
“46, we have heard from human rights organisations that they are very much troubled by the fact that this Bill is providing a kind of power of arrest for large swathes of the non-Irish population, and not just international protection applicants. It sounds eerily similar to scenes we have seen in other countries around immigration, with customs and practices changing and becoming much more draconian. I am concerned that this Bill prioritises, above all things, the power to detain vulnerable people who are seeking protection, particularly on the question of minors.”
“The concern for us here is that this Bill has no safeguards to avoid that potentially taking place. On amendment No. 19, which the Minister will be familiar with, the reception conditions directive states that any decision imposing detention should state the reasons "other less coercive alternative measures" could not be applied effectively and "any alternatives measures to detention should respect the fundamental human rights of applicants". This is why we have proposed an amendment around the idea of a "measure of last resort". It seeks to put the onus on the Government to comply with international law, to be creative and to think about alternative ways instead of always defaulting to the position of detention, which, certainly when it comes to children, is not in anybody's best interests. On amendment No.”
“I will be speaking to some of the amendments Senator Noonan spoke about and a few others. I will let the Minister know which ones they are when I reach them. Amendment No. 38 provides that "A member of An Garda Síochána or an immigration officer shall not arrest an applicant under this section for the sole reason that he or she is an applicant, or on the basis of his or her nationality." The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, has cited numerous mechanisms that deprive international protection applicants of their liberty despite the right to liberty being one of the most strongly protected rights under international law and, indeed, Irish law. We are concerned about the idea that we might risk criminalising the very act of asylum seeking and the very act of migration.”
“We need strong regulation to make sure horrific abuses of tech do not continue without consequence and to ensure our energy needs prioritise residential households and ordinary people first and foremost. I would like us to have a debate in this House about the balance between positive, sustainable investment and strong regulation with positive outcomes for communities first and foremost. Ultimately, our end goal needs to be developing sustainable, protected and safe environments and communities.”
“It is going to negatively impact ordinary households and it is going to have lasting consequences for our environment. Where are the Government's climate goals when the Taoiseach is opening the door to further data centres? He is utterly muddying the water on his Government's supposed climate commitments. Other worrying remarks from the Taoiseach this week included his comments on the need to "pivot more to innovation as opposed to regulation" on tech. Given that we have been dealing with the fallout from an horrific, dehumanising and abusive nudification scandal with Grok and X, I found it really shocking that the Taoiseach chose his limited time in the Oval Office to champion deregulation. When the Government talks about easing planning rules for data centres and deregulating the tech space, alarm bells ring for me.”
“The "Journal Investigates" reported last year that many of these data centres are actually running on generators fuelled by fossil fuels, which are then releasing huge amounts of CO2 into our environment. While some data centres are being connected directly to renewable energy sources, and that sounds great in theory, it means the grid is now dependent on fossil fuels, so ordinary households are paying higher prices on fossil fuel-generated energy. Our energy needs are already incredibly stretched, with domestic consumers paying eye-wateringly high prices, some of the highest across Europe. The Taoiseach's words in Washington seem to suggest we are going to continue rolling out the red carpet for data centres without any consideration of our own domestic needs. It is reckless.”
“This week in Washington, the Taoiseach told business leaders that the Government is prioritising the growth of data centres in Ireland. We already have, I think, 89 data centres in Ireland, with planning permissions approved for even more. Data centres are, of course, critical infrastructure but they currently consume over 20% of our electricity. This is huge compared to our EU neighbours. The next two highest countries are the Netherlands at 5.2% and Luxembourg at 4.8%. It is estimated that by 2030, data centres will account for 30% of our energy consumption in Ireland and this is completely unsustainable. Data centres are consuming vast amounts of energy and putting pressure on our grid.”
“This will reduce the likelihood of and the volume of appeals and result in a more efficient and cost-effective system. There is a human rights-based approach to having this legal system. There is a process lens to it as well in terms of ensuring the decisions that are made are proper, strong and robust and do not lead to more appeals later down the line. We can perhaps speak further on it when the Minister responds.”
“While I am happy the Minister has belatedly tabled an amendment defining the concept of legal counselling, the fact remains we cannot accept a situation where there is any reduction to the level of legal assistance available to applicants. We brought forward amendment No. 62 to make clear the need to inform the applicant of their rights and of the State's obligations. It is obvious that these rights should include the legal assistance rights of the applicant. International protection applicants are vulnerable people who are navigating complex legal processes. It is essential that they are informed of the assistance available to them. It is essential that this assistance is not reduced. It is all about better quality first-instance decision-making.”
“We will be utterly failing them and they will not be able to get the proper support they need throughout this really complicated process. We have tabled amendment No. 62 on the entitlement of the applicant, for the purposes of his or her application and for the purposes of any decision under the Act, to consult a legal adviser and seek legal assistance and legal representation. It is designed in order that applicants can be informed of their right to consult a legal adviser and seek legal assistance and legal representation throughout their application process. It is very clear and very important that they are informed of this. There has been significant confusion and concern throughout the passage of the Bill as to the level of legal assistance that will be provided during an incredibly complex legal process.”
“Our goal is to ensure the law facilitates good decision-making, and all of us in the room would agree with this. Therefore, it is essential that those interacting with the system are empowered to do so in a way that not only protects their rights but leads to good decisions being made in line with the legislation and does not lead to challenges with appeals later. This means ensuring people have appropriate and proper supports available to them in the form of legal advice or individualised legal counselling, with clarity on exactly who is carrying out the legal counselling. Supports in the form of legal counselling must be bespoke and individual, and this is why we have tabled the amendment. I understand the Minister will not accept it but I really think we are failing people if we put them into group legal advice.”
“It should not be group counselling but should be individualised to a particular case and tailored to the needs and circumstances of an individual. It is not clear from what the Minister has brought forward on legal counselling that this will indeed be the case. We cannot have a situation where vulnerable applicants navigating deeply complex laws and procedures are only being provided with what the Minister is describing as legal counselling on a group basis or in the form of any generalised advice. It would not be appropriate and it would not fit the needs of these very vulnerable people. A situation like this would see many applicants unable to navigate the system. They would not be able to manage their cases appropriately and, in turn, this would lead to bad decisions being made.”
“With regard to the idea of legal counselling versus legal advice, the Minister says this is a new concept he is bringing onto a statutory footing in Ireland. As my understanding is that advice has to be conducted by a solicitor or barrister, who exactly will carry out this counselling? It is good that some concept of legal counselling has been brought forward and that the Minister has given a definition. It is quite baffling that it has taken so long to get it but nevertheless it is good that it is here. We do have concerns that what the Minister is proposing will fall short of what applicants are currently entitled to. The reason we tabled our amendments is to ensure legal counselling is individualised. This is very specific.”
“Why are our citizens having to take their own initiative to do this? Why is the Department not providing consular advice? Why are people in Qatar receiving one email on Monday and nothing else? I was on the radio earlier. I heard other people talk about citizens in Qatar who have received one email. It is a total shambles. It is ridiculous. I cannot fathom that we are in this situation. We have EU partners. Why are we not working with them? Where are the evacuation plans? It should be across all of the countries in the region where people are vulnerable. It is utterly tone deaf how the Government has handled this situation. It beggars belief. I am calling on the House to ask the Minister to review what is being done urgently.”
“What kind of humanitarian response is this when our own citizens have to pay upfront to get out? To try to soften the news, the Minister stated that free bus services would be provided. So generous. The Minister must review this urgently and ensure that all citizens are evacuated without having to pay upfront costs. Any repayment should be on a case-by-case basis but, critically, it should be done when the citizens are out of the war zone, not when they are in it. On a similar vein, I have spoken to Irish citizens in Qatar. They received one email on Monday; that is it. The only communication was one email on Monday. I spoke to one person who used his own initiative. Off his own bat, he contacted EU member states' embassies in Qatar and the Austrians got him on a bus to Riyadh. He organised that himself, not through the Department.”
“It is incredibly out of touch. I cannot fathom how this was approved at any level in the Department. There are Irish citizens who are in a war zone and they need to be evacuated. They should not be asked to pay upfront costs. What if people do not have that money? Do they just stay there for the foreseeable future? The Government has explicitly said it is targeting people who are in transit, first and foremost, as opposed to people who are residents. These people have already paid for expensive flights. Perhaps they were travelling somewhere in south-east Asia. They have already paid multiple thousands of pounds to go on that trip and now they are stuck. How will they have the money? Anyone who travelled during Covid and had to get home will know that airlines are not forthcoming when it comes to reimbursements.”
“Yesterday evening, we saw very relieved faces in Dublin Airport and heard from people who had just got off an evacuation flight from Dubai. We heard how incredibly stressful and difficult it has been for people who have been trapped in the region over the last few days. The people in the region have now been told by the Irish Government that they are going to have to pay €800 per seat for an evacuation flight. This is ridiculous. It is scandalous. It stinks of a shakedown rather than any well thought-out evacuation plan. The Department is sending people a PayPal link, as if to say, "Clink this link, pay the money and out you go." While I recognise the Department has said children will not be included, plenty of families have adult children. A family of four could have to spend €3,200 to get out of a war zone. It is so incredibly cruel.”
“There is no data available for that. Again, I point to the veracity of the argument around needing to sign this letter. In his speech on December, the Minister referred to the need for clarity about inhumane and degrading treatment. I do not know why we need clarity on what is torture, what is inhumane and what is degrading treatment, particularly in light of the inter-state cases we took on the hooded men. It is obscene.”
“That is what is concerning. As for contemporary challenges posed by irregular migration, France, Germany, Spain and Türkiye were not among the signatories to this letter, despite these four countries alone hosting 50% of all refugees and asylum seekers and people under temporary protection in Europe. Those four countries, the states which, objectively, have the biggest migration challenge, are not jumping on the populist bandwagon of signing this joint statement. The French ambassador at the Council of Europe described the move by the 27 signatories as "insidious" to human rights and the human rights frameworks. That is why I am concerned. The Minister for justice, when asked by my colleague Deputy Gannon, could not provide any figures for the number of deportations blocked due to the ECHR or the European Court of Human Rights.”
“I thank the Minister of State. Can he be explicit about whether the Department and the Government will meet IHREC before those negotiations in less than two weeks? IHREC has a clear mandate in this area. It has been given that mandate by the Irish Government and has a clear interest and stake in this. I get that the Irish Government believes in the Good Friday Agreement but I did not get an answer on what consultation was done about the implications of signing a letter that would see us question Articles 3 and 8, two areas on which the Government has taken inter-state cases against the UK Government. It is absolutely absurd. On the issue of maintaining and committing to the convention, that is not what the signature in December last year represented. It represented a significant waiver on our question of human rights.”
“Does the Minister of State believe that we should materially alter our universal human rights standards in order to send a message to people that we are not, in fact, born equal? That is what this represents. The Government is campaigning for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, UNHRC. How does pulling out of provisions of the ECHR framework look within that context? What is the Government's position in advance of the CDDH next week? Will it commit to protecting Article 3 and Article 8 rights? Will it practice what it preaches about upholding international law and human rights? Will it meet and consult with stakeholders like the IHREC and the ICCL next week in advance of that meeting and before Ireland's contributions to the steering committee?”
“Why did our Government choose not to align itself with those partners? We are living through utterly terrifying times in terms of global norms being ripped apart. During times of turbulence and polarisation, we need to hold on to the legal frameworks which underpin our self-proclaimed values of human rights and dignity. We are seeing complete existential threats to our human rights systems and state inconsistencies on issues of international law. Attempts to alter the ECHR represent a retreat from the concept of the universality of human rights. Does this Government believe that all people are born equal? That is a direct question. Does the Minister of State believe that we are all born equal or do he and the Government believe that some people deserve fewer rights?”
“The proposals put forward on the political declaration by Denmark, the UK and others are incredibly regressive in terms of the universality of human rights. They are also hugely concerning when it comes to the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement. Two weeks ago, I got a set-piece response from the Department regarding my question about whether a risk assessment was undertaken specifically in relation to the Good Friday Agreement before the December signing. Which political and civil society stakeholders did the Department meaningfully consult with as part of this risk assessment? I got no answer from the Department two weeks ago. I hope the Minister of State can give me an answer today. Many of our EU partners, including France, Germany and Spain, did not sign the joint declaration.”
“Relevant stakeholders like the IHREC, the ICCL, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, CAJ, NGOs and academics have been shut out of the dialogue relating to this issue. I am deeply concerned about the complete lack of transparency regarding this policy shift on the part of the Irish Government on the question of the universality of human rights. That is why I am particularly frustrated that twice in a fortnight I have raised this and nobody from the Department has come in to respond. That is because it points to questions of transparency and accountability. Next week, the Steering Committee for Human Rights, CDDH, will be taking dealing with the concluding stage of this. The latter is the final time Ireland can influence the text before it moves on to the next stage.”
“The Minister for foreign affairs has often spoken about the importance of human rights and international law, with which I absolutely agree but the ECHR is fundamental to that framework. As I said two weeks ago, Ireland has brought two interstate cases against the UK on the grounds of ECHR Article 3 protections, including the torture of the hooded men in the North and the current case against the Tories' inhumane and cruel legacy Act. Linked to that, it is utterly appalling that a letter was signed by the Irish Government indicating support for changes to Article 3 protections. This would weaken our standards in respect of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment. The entire process around the political decision to support amending elements of the ECHR was done without any meaningful public debate.”
“The Irish Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have historically been fair and balanced defenders of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, which makes the total U-turn on the commitment to the ECHR last December deeply concerning and perplexing. When Ireland signed the joint statement to the Conference of Ministers at the Council of Europe it served to blur and totally muddy the waters on Ireland's position in relation to the ECHR. Many human rights groups including the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC are hugely worried about this quiet but insidious shift in Irish policy.”
“I welcome the Minister of State. It should be noted that twice in the past two weeks I have asked to speak to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade about this issue and the Department has not sent someone in, which is disappointing. In addition, this Commencement matter relates to the Department of justice, so there are actually six appropriate Ministers or Ministers of State who could have come to the House deal with it. I know that is nothing to with Deputy McConalogue, but I just wanted to put it on the record. It is incredibly frustrating and it suggests a lack of respect for the work that we do in this Chamber.”
“That is concerning when we consider the multiple billions of euro we are about to spend on public infrastructure. Do we have the people there to make it and how can we make our market more competitive to bring in construction workers? Can we do things like joint ventures between indigenous Irish construction bodies and larger international construction bodies so that we build up our national expertise within local construction businesses and companies that may not have some of that? Some of this is expert knowledge of digging with certain machinery and equipment. Could we explore joint ventures as a way of building up our domestic expertise?”
“Is it that Uisce Éireann is not doing the tasks quickly enough, is it that it is not prioritising areas, or is that the funding is not there for it to increase supply in the most critical areas? We heard from the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, last week that the construction industry needed 80,000 new workers to meet demand. The Irish construction industry is 30% less productive than our European neighbours'. I would love to hear from the Minister on what the Government is considering as regards increasing productivity in that space by utilising the construction workers we have. I heard from the Construction Industry Federation today at the infrastructure committee that nearly 70% of contractors did not do public work.”
“Data centres use over 20% of Ireland's electricity supply. In a few years' time, that will be 30%. That is concerning because Irish consumers are going to face massive increases in electricity prices as a consequence of that. We are going to have to choose between powering AI in the near future and powering our homes. We need to consider the planning around that. Obviously, Uisce Éireann is linked to the water issue. When we had Uisce Éireann before the infrastructure committee a few months ago - maybe even before the summer - it put much of the responsibility for the lack of funding back on the Department. There is a lack of clarity around who is to blame - "blame" is perhaps the wrong word - and where the responsibility lies.”
“I thought the Senator was laughing at me. Maybe he was laughing at something else. The planning element is important, but there is an issue with the number and resourcing of planners in local authorities as well as with the backlog in cases that planners are addressing. We have had complex planning legislation over in the past few years and planners say it is very difficult to keep up with the regulation. With the frameworks around planning continuing to change, it makes their jobs even more difficult. This leads to mistakes in planning decisions, which can be taken for judicial review. The more mistakes we have when planning decisions are made, the more recourse people have to take judicial reviews. We have major issues in vital infrastructure, such as electricity and water supply.”
“I agree it is good but I worry that streamlining and simplification is often used as a synonym for things like deregulation. I am concerned that we are actually going to be making planning decisions more difficult and risking other arbitration decisions further down the line. The whole piece around planning and the planning process is obviously incredibly important. We had an era where a lot of planners left Ireland during the crash. Am I saying something funny, Senator Murphy?”
“Perhaps it could be the creation of an expert unit responsible for procurement and project management. The Minister’s Department is responsible for infrastructure and the budgets and design but when some of that is outsourced to other Departments do they have the in-house expertise? The case of CHI and the national children’s hospital is the one that comes into my head and I know we have spoken about it at length. Does CHI have the in-house expertise? Is it dealing with the procurement piece correctly? How can we bridge the gap to make sure it is? I am very concerned that instead of trying to implement a robust and reformed system to improve oversight and implementation in the infrastructure sector we are putting in more processes that will make mistakes more quickly. I agree with the idea of streamlining.”
“We are not taking quality into account, and quality in procurement is so important for things like disability and environment and to get the best possible outcome for infrastructure no matter what the area. Issues have been raised around the bureaucratic and onerous nature of our public procurement processes, exclusionary qualifying criteria, poorly defined project briefs, unrealistic budgets – we hear a lot of feedback on that from contractors – a lack of understanding of complexity of the construction stage on the part of the clients, in this case the client being the Government, and a lack of collaboration on the whole chain of the process. The risk is transferred to the people who are bidding on the contract. I would love to know what we could do to strengthen that.”
“I thank the Minister. It is obviously a timely debate. I was at the infrastructure committee earlier where we were talking about procurement. I will spend some time talking about that challenge of doing procurement well. Our procurement and tendering process has so many gaps that are leading to big scandals like the national children’s hospital where repetitive change orders are being put in place. I would love to know what we can do to strengthen this process. There is also the question of quality procurement. We have a culture of lowest cost, where the contract goes out to tender and we have the lowest cost coming back from the contractors who are bidding for it.”
“We would ensure that schoolchildren with additional needs have the same access to school places as any other children and we would recognise the unique needs of every child and prioritise that child in reaching his or her full potential. When I visited Newtown Dunleckney Mixed National School in County Carlow a few weeks ago during the height of the concern around the reduction in SNA numbers - the school had been sent a letter in respect of that matter - the principal shared with me the desperation that educational professionals are feeling every day. They have to go against their values time and again by saying to parents "No. I'm so sorry. We don't have the resources. We can't support you fully in the way that your child deserves." We cannot have the scandal that we had over the past few weeks happen again next year or the year after.”
“The NCSE Relate document was published last year. It is the gold standard in the area of special education, and SNAs love it. Serious resources will be required in respect of it, but the Government is clearly not willing to provide that, which is a disgrace. The 2014 SNA circular reinforces ableist language and a hierarchy of needs that ignores the complexity of each child's unique experiences. One child may need help to go to the toilet while another may struggle with emotional regulation. Both needs are primary needs when it comes to the child involved feeling safe and being able to participate fully in school life. Secondary needs are also crucial. This is why the Social Democrats are seeking a front-loading of the assignment of SNAs to schools.”
“They are paying in order that their children will have access to, frankly, the most basic educational supports. They also fear that their children will fall further behind. They want their children to have access to education, but they also want them to feel safe and happy going to school every day. We have heard from journalist Emma Ward that the care she got during her school days made the difference between a child who was isolated and left behind to a child who was shown care and patience and was supported to thrive. The Government announced threats to hollow out a system that is already so poorly resourced. That was a slap in the face to parents and educators who are already at their wits' end. We need an educational model that is child centred. Our schools should be designed around the needs of children and not the other way round.”
“It is a whole-school issue and a community-wide issue. Education for children with additional needs is not a bonus or good luck, and it should not depend on one's eircode. We should be cherishing all the children of the nation equally. The reality is, however, that at the moment we do not. If this Government is serious about inclusion, it needs to get serious about resourcing it properly. The Government is suffering from inclusion delusion if it thinks that SNA reductions in specific schools is going to do anything other than block children from an education they have every entitlement to. While I recognise that there is a pause, it was utterly ridiculous that we had weeks of concern and fear among parents, teachers, SNAs and school communities. This should never have happened in the first place. Parents are desperate.”
“SNAs are not optional extras or nice to have. It sometimes feels like this Government is treating them as an afterthought. In the context of my contribution, I am going to rely heavily on the words of those who have seen at first hand the realities of providing care for children with special needs. I specifically thank my colleagues councillors Lesley Byrne, Jesslyn Henry and Samantha O'Flanagan for their activism in this area. When the Government thinks of cutting SNAs from specific schools without recognising the full scope of the supports they provide, it is not simply adjusting numbers on a spreadsheet. It is removing children's access to safety, dignity and their chance to fully participate in school life. Special education is not a niche consideration for a handful of children and their families.”
“While we have many strategies, including the zero tolerance strategy to end domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, the women's health action plan and the national strategy for women and girls, this is simply not enough. Without more women in politics, women's issues will continue to be treated as fringe issues. We make up half the population but so many basic services and rights for women are either missing or ineffective. Therefore, for this International Women's Day we need a complete overhaul of how we tackle gender inequality in Ireland and overcome the systemic barriers to women’s equal participation in policy-making and decision-making so we will not be here next year or the following years repeating the same conversations. Ní saoirse go saoirse na mban. That is my cúpla focal for the week.”
“Topics have included the following: maternal healthcare; bereavement leave for pregnancy loss; the gendered impact of new rental legislation; mother and baby homes; sexual abuse images, whether AI-generated or simply shared without consent; the high level of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence; the extremely low number of convictions for sexual assault; carers being women disproportionately; the childcare crisis; and the failing healthcare system for women suffering from conditions such as endometriosis, premenstrual dysphoric disorder and menopause. The list of crises in this country that affect women is endless.”
“The research states women work harder to represent constituencies, enhancing trust in government. States with more female leaders are less prone to war and human rights abuses. Women bring collaborative, inclusive leadership to divisive political spaces. Women’s presence in politics increases perceptions of electoral integrity and women’s presence as candidates and officeholders changes a sense of who has the ability to rule. I am aware that there are measures in place to attempt to improve Ireland’s total deficiency in relation to gender equality in politics, such as gender quotas and Government funding for organisations such as See Her Elected and Women for Election Ireland. I have been looking through some of the debates in the Chamber that we have had over the past year and, honestly, I am quite shocked.”
“I will not be attending the debate on International Women's Day later, so I am going to use my time this morning to refer to it. Fifty-one per cent of the population in Ireland are women, so all things being equal, we should have equal representation in the Oireachtas. The population of Cork is 50% women, yet only one woman TD, my party leader, Deputy Holly Cairns, was elected in all of Cork’s constituencies. There are only four women TDs for all of Munster. Fourteen constituencies in Ireland have no women representing them. Ireland ranks 22nd out of the 27 European countries in terms of women elected to national parliaments. We rank 100th in the world. Research from King's College shows that women leaders prioritise healthcare, welfare and education, benefiting the most vulnerable and making for more equal and caring societies.”
“This Bill significantly expands the State's powers of detention, particularly in the context of returns procedures, so we need answers on where people will be detained, what the conditions will be like and what the oversight of those centres will be. If the State is to deprive someone of his or her liberty, it must state those clearly, and also the legal basis for that decision, together with having the necessary safeguards. On Committee Stage, I will bring forward amendments to these incredibly important issues that are at the core of human rights and are central to our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child because we cannot allow any legislation that will compound any harm to children who have already been through so much trauma.”