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 14 of 28.
“Will Ireland advocate for the protection of Article 3 and Article 8 and ensure that no measures are taken to weaken those articles? Have the Minister or her officials met IHREC, as the leading national human rights institution, to address its concerns regarding the joint statement and its recommendations on the political declaration? Has the Department responded in any way to the public submissions that IHREC has made? Critically, was an assessment made before the joint statement was signed as to the extent to which the joint statement would risk undermining Article 3 protections that have been so central to the Good Friday Agreement and the interstate cases that Ireland has taken against the UK, including the current case? Ireland's credibility as a defender of international law is at stake.”
“Even more confusing is that Ireland was once seen as a strong opponent of the Danish initiative last year but that changed in December. The joint statement seems utterly inconsistent with the previous position of the Government. If the Minister for foreign affairs were here today, I would be asking her: what is the Government's position in the lead-up to the Moldova summit in May? What is her Department doing in the run-up to these negotiations? What position is Ireland taking on the CDDH? What will Ireland's approach be for the political declaration? The Secretary General has set out a very clear approach; will Ireland be aligning with that? Nothing in the political declaration should weaken the ECHR but some of the language being thrown around would pose significant risk to the integrity of the court and the convention.”
“Let us not forget that Ireland has used the ECHR instruments. Both of the interstate cases Ireland has taken against the UK over the torture of the hooded men in the North in the early 1970s and the current case against the Tories' cruel legacy Act were done on the grounds of the Article 3 protections. In 2014, Ireland sought to revise the hooded men case to ensure that the threshold for torture was not undermined. Any attempts to change Article 3 provisions will damage global standards against torture and inhumane and degrading treatment for everyone. The Good Friday Agreement relies on the ECHR and underpins peace on this island. This is why the joint statement by Ireland is so concerning for many, including IHREC and the ICCL.”
“Sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious. Protecting fundamental rights protects everyone. This is a sentiment I firmly agree with. However, in December last year Ireland signed the joint statement to the conference of ministers of justice at the Council of Europe which has served to blur Ireland position on the ECHR and indicates a deeply worrying shift in Irish policy. The Minister for foreign affairs has often spoken on the importance of international law and human rights, and Ireland's key role in upholding them and setting a strong example for the rest of the world. In January she said, "Accountability is important and it is absolutely imperative that the international courts are permitted to function". The Minister for justice has spoken of the need for an international human rights system. I also welcome those sentiments.”
“The European Convention on Human Rights has played a crucial role in bringing peace to this island. It is the cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement and it is about an external mutual framework which has provided much-needed trust for communities emerging from conflict. The Irish Government has historically emphasised that any weakening of the ECHR poses a risk to the Good Friday Agreement. Irish governments have rightly been critical of the long-running campaign in Britain regarding the dilution of and withdrawing from the framework. Both the Tory and Reform parties have committed to pulling out of the ECHR and even the Labour government is debating withdrawing from certain elements of it. Last September the Tánaiste said the ECHR's guarantees cannot be negotiated despite what some politicians might claim.”
“I thank the Minister of State for coming. It would have been much better to have the Minister from the relevant Department here because of the nature of this Commencement matter. It is pretty disappointing that the Minister is not here. Commencement matters should not be selected if the Minister in question is not available. The whole value of this was to be able to speak to someone from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Actually, I am not sure if there is much point in doing this, but anyway we are here now.”
“This Bill says care must flow in all directions; not just from SNAs to children but from the State to SNAs. We cannot ask staff to support children with complex needs without also supporting the staff themselves. We cannot champion inclusion while ignoring the physical and psychological cost borne by those providing care and we cannot continue to rely on goodwill, silence and self-sacrifice as substitutes for proper workplace protections.”
“It says that if you are injured in work you should be able to take leave and get the medical care you need without being out of pocket or fearing you may face a financial cliff edge when the paid leave comes to an end. I really welcome that this Bill seeks to remove the word “assault” from the circular. It is wrong this word is used in most instances where an injury has been caused by a child who is dysregulated and might be feeling unsafe or scared. This child does not intend to injure those who provide care for them and as I mentioned in the context of the planned cuts to the SNA allocation, in the past few days we have heard so many parents talk about the incredible relationship between their children and the SNAs who work with them and that the SNAs are crucial to providing a feeling of safety for the children.”
“Back or neck injuries might not until a few days afterward, especially if we take into consideration adrenaline response and especially the human response to keep going, not let colleagues down and not let the children they are working with down. If someone delays taking leave while trying to manage their pain or injury, the system effectively penalises them for that choice. That is not compassion and it is not fairness and that is why we need to change it. The Bill recognises workplace injuries require a human and realistic response. It acknowledges that trauma and injury do not always present themselves immediately and that workers should not be forced to make snap decisions while in shock or pain for fear of losing their income.”
“Fórsa had a survey which showed 69% of SNAs reported being injured due to an assault – a word I use cautiously – and some 47% of respondents required medical treatment after that and 37% required hospital care. SNAs, just like any worker, have the right to be protected in their workplace and their employer has a legal obligation to make the workplace as safe as is reasonably practicable. Staff who are hurt in work are placed in an impossible position. Unless they leave immediately after the injury they may be denied any paid leave. This is an outrageous system because in many instances an injury might not be immediately recognisable.”
“In many cases we see SNAs doing medical interventions because there is no appropriate supports as schools do not have nurses, even though we are told the school nurse should be doing toilet breaks for non-toileted children. This reduction in SNAs was a slap in the face to hardworking staff in schools supporting children with those needs, so as I said I welcome the pause. I welcome the Trojan work of Fórsa and SNAs for their successful campaign to have that decision paused. Just because an injury caused by a child was not the result of an intention to hurt their SNA or teacher does not mean school staff should have to accept it and receive no support from the State.”
“These incidents happen because of dysregulation, because children are not having their needs met and quite frankly it is a direct consequence of the State’s failure to provide adequate services, supports and appropriate school places. I am also appalled by the SNA reduction letter received last week by schools across the country. I appreciate there has been a pause, which I welcome, but a measure reducing SNAs in schools would make classrooms less safe for SNAs, teachers, children with additional needs and children in mainstream classes because there will be fewer SNAs around to do the Trojan work they are doing to support children in having sensory function and not being dysregulated. SNAs are doing a whole range of work. That could be movement breaks, sensory breaks, quiet time and a long list of other crucial tasks.”
“She has faced significant injuries in the course of her work as an SNA. At her first meeting of Dublin City Council she was unable to speak because her jaw was locked following her being punched in the face and dragged to the floor in the classroom earlier that day. Jesslyn has told me of a huge list of injuries she has faced in the workplace, including being pushed into iron railings and being badly bruised. She has had to have her neck in a brace because she has been dragged to the ground several times. As we have heard from many contributors to this debate, Jesslyn and all the SNAs I have spoken to are at pains to reinforce this is not the child’s fault and wish to reaffirm the children are not to blame.”
“However, across our education system teachers, SNAs and other school staff are being injured in the course of their work and in many cases these incidents involve children with additional needs who themselves require care, understanding and appropriate supports and those supports are not always available in the schools. I have heard of one SNA, Donna, who had her shoulder injured when attempting to support a 12-year-old boy in a sensory tunnel. The boy panicked, kicked out and accidentally injured her. Devastatingly, because of the aches and pains from her shoulder, which she assumed were a consequence of being kicked, Donna missed an early diagnosis of cancer in her shoulder and she is still suffering form that. My Social Democrats colleague, Councillor Jesslyn Henry, is here this evening.”
“I am pleased to have co-sponsored Senator Harmon's Bill. I acknowledge the work of Sophie, who is in the Chamber, and the work of my friend Samantha O'Flanagan and what she has done in Fórsa. I am very conscious of the sensitivity and complexity of the issue before us. As we have heard in all of the contributions this evening, SNAs and teachers do vital work supporting children with additional needs to reach their full potential, as Senator Clonan so eloquently put it, and to learn and thrive in an inclusive environment. In some instances their work is not without risk. Schools must be safe places for children and for the adults who care for, teach and support them.”
“I appreciate that the Minister of State engages with many stakeholders and, as anyone who has worked on any type of policy with a wide range of stakeholders will know, it is impossible to get consensus. For us, groups like Threshold, which represent the most vulnerable people renting in society, are the voices to be prioritised. I wanted to make that point clear.”
“The Minister of State talked about consulting different organisations, and we appreciate that he has done that. It is worth pointing out that, for example, Threshold has said that despite the proposed improvements to security of tenure, it is extremely concerned about the decision to allow landlords to set rents to market levels between tenancies, particularly after a renter leaves voluntarily or is evicted for breach of contract. It urges the Government to remedy this gap in the legislation. It is important to note that. It is one thing to say they have been consulted, but we all know there are different levels of consultation and engagement.”
“People come to us, as representatives, and ask if we can help them with finding somewhere to live or getting out of emergency accommodation, but we cannot do anything. The local authorities are struggling to meet the demand. Senator Cosgrove laid it out beautifully. We believe that the incentive behind this legislation is coming from private investors and is not being driven by affordable housing demand. That is the issue. We are seeing the kind of colonial tenant class and landlord class that are so etched into our history being played out in modern Ireland, and that is dark and bleak. If it goes on like this, we will be in an even worse situation, if people can imagine that, than we are today. Some of the amendments are mitigating efforts to try to make the Bill a little more realistic and a bit more manageable.”
“It would be great for the Minister of State to be able to tell us what will happen. I appreciate that we have been putting up our hands to speak and that he has not yet had the opportunity to come back in. These are the things in respect of which we want answers, because it is hard for us when we strongly believe that the legislation will not fix those things. It will not put mothers back in their homes with their children in order that they can make pancakes. It will not stop people from having to go out on the street to stop their neighbours being evicted. We all appreciate that this is so real for many people. We all receive representations all the time. It is the most heartbreaking thing.”
“However, she cannot do that for her daughter because she does not have a hob, a fridge or access to cooking facilities. Many families would not have had pancakes. We all had our pancakes down in the canteen. They did not have pancakes yesterday, Pancake Tuesday. It was not available because she could not do the simplest thing. What a small gesture for a child any day of the week. It does not need to be Pancake Tuesday to be able to provide that. We do not see this Bill bringing those people out of homelessness. It will increase supply, but we do not see it driving down rents or providing more affordable accommodation where people can live. That is the challenge for us. We do not see it stopping evictions, which are increasing. We do not see it stopping the rise in the number of homeless people.”
“When we talk about homelessness, and we have these endless figures increasing month after month, it is heartbreaking and can be difficult. The more the figures increase, the less human it becomes, and it is more about numbers. We put less of a face on it. Since it was pancake Tuesday yesterday, it reminded me of that. I recently spoke to a mother who is living in homeless accommodation. She told me that the most heartbreaking thing for her is when she is talking to her child about their whole situation. They have been there for months and there is no pathway out for them. There is nowhere to go, so they are living in emergency accommodation. Her child asked, "Can we have pancakes today?" All that is required to make pancakes is milk, flour and eggs. It is the simplest thing; cheap as chips.”
“I echo what Senator Cosgrove just said. There is an opportunity to not guillotine the debate tomorrow and it would be fantastic if that opportunity was taken. Senator Harmon talked about the terminology of landlords being outdated. While I wish that were true and I wish it were archaic, the reality is it is not. There were 5,000 eviction notices issued in the past three months. It is almost like we are approaching Famine-level evictions in Ireland and, like the Famine, these evictions are based on economic reasons because people cannot afford rent. We will see that soar in this context. We had evictions in Kilkenny this week and in Waterford. It is so evocative and painful for people that there are community members getting out on the streets, trying to defend their neighbour who, through no fault of their own, cannot pay rent.”
“We often hear that Fianna Fáil is the party of home building but we cannot keep dining out on a decades-old story because the reality is we do not have enough homes. Yes, building more accommodation and apartments is a positive thing but not if they are unaffordable and not if they are linked to market rents where the average person simply cannot not afford to live in them.”
“There is very little evidence in the Bill on the protection of vulnerable groups, such as those who constantly cycle in and out of rental accommodation. Senator Andrews spoke about the high levels of rent across the country, but people are screaming out with fear and are terrified that the Bill will make their lives more unaffordable than they already are. It would be great to hear directly from the Minister of State about when he anticipates rents falling. Rents in the many expensive apartment buildings that have been built are totally out of reach for people. The Minister of State knows that we would love to have a State construction company and the Government building housing.”
“Women fleeing domestic violence are told to go and seek new accommodation. They are told to go to a refuge and, it is to be hoped, after that they can find a new place to live and rent. They will not come under the six-year tenant safety protection the Minister of State says the Bill will provide. They will be forced into market rent every single time they flee. That will lead to women staying in violent situations. I spoke about this in detail last week. That is what the outcome of this legislation will be. Women will choose between fleeing with their children or staying at home because they do not know where to live. They do not know whether they will have emergency accommodation for eight or ten months.”
“That family may have multiple children around the same age at university at the same time. They are paying more in rent while still paying off their mortgage. It is excruciating for people. Last week, the Minister, Deputy Browne, said the Opposition is peddling misery. I wonder whether the Minister of State thinks we are lying or not reflecting the reality of the people who come to us with these concerns and are horrified by the real rent increases that the Bill will bring about. Does the Minister of State think we are peddling misery or reflecting legitimate views from people who are screaming out with concern that this is going to make their lives unaffordable? I would like to mention something I spoke about last week, when the Minister of State was not here for the debate.”
“The reality is that the average rental time span is three and a half years. We would like something like a no-fault eviction ban, which is what would actually give renters protection, rather than the idea of six-year tenancies which does not reflect the reality. For example, students move around regularly and some face extortionate rents. This includes the challenge of what rent is because many people face additional charges, in particular for private student accommodation. One student told me it is becoming impossible to continuously afford rent and they have had to cut essential groceries each week which, it goes without saying, affects one's dignity. They went on to say that their parents have helped them with accommodation, but have been struggling big time as the rent is now more than the mortgage cost.”
“Obviously, supply is important and I do not think any of us are saying it is not. The level of housing being built does not match the increase in population over the past several decades. The problem is that we have over-relied on the private sector. The private sector is important. The Social Democrats are not saying there is no role for the private sector to play in this space. When it comes to supply, it has to be more nuanced than just supply, supply, supply. We have to look at affordability. We have no evidence. Can the Minister of State tell us if he expects rents to come down in the next six, 12 or 18 months? If he is claiming rents will come down, which we do not believe, can he point to a period of time when he thinks they will? The Minister of State spoke about the six-year protections for renters.”
“If we want to talk about evidence-based policy, we should be looking at reports and analysis so that we can assess the impact of the policy we are making on the lives of people who are going to be affected.”
“That is what we saw play out in the Dáil last week, but the fact of the matter is this Bill cannot be made very much better, even with the small mitigations we are attempting. I stand to support this particular amendment, which is really just trying to bring a bit of evidence and actual analysis to what has been an incredibly rushed process. There was a minority report at the housing committee which laid out very clearly deep concerns about this Bill and what it will mean in terms of making rent incredibly unaffordable. I wish that the Minister of State will at least consider this idea of bringing some evidence and analysis so that we could come back to this. I suspect the answer is going to be "No".”
“I thank the Minister of State for being here. It was the Minister, Deputy Browne, who was here last week when we were on Second Stage of the legislation, so I will repeat some of the concerns about this Bill. It will be no surprise to the Minister of State that many in the Opposition do not support this Bill and do not see any evidence of how it is going to work. There is no evidence that it will bring down rents and that is why we are referring to it as the rent hike Bill, because in fact everything points to the fact that it going to increase rents which are already incredibly high. A series of amendments from me and other Social Democrats, Labour Party, Green Party and Sinn Féin Senators are all an attempt to make this Bill a little bit better. The Minister of State will probably not accept any of those amendments.”
“What does this mean for the future of the EU around deregulation? We hear the word "competitiveness", but we can compete while also setting high standards for the rest of the world when it comes to human rights, digital protections and the environment.”
“Reference has been made to the Draghi report, which has been used in the EU and by Ursula von der Leyen to set a deregulation agenda. I was deeply concerned about the vote on the omnibus I package last year on the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, which saw members of the European People's Party, EPP, for the first time in the history of the European Parliament, vote with the far right. The forthcoming digital omnibus will again strip away fundamental digital protection rights. The omnibus I package stripped away fundamental human rights and environmental standards, no longer making it mandatory for companies to implement their environmental plans. All of that is hugely concerning. We often hear the term "simplification", which is being used increasingly as a synonym for deregulation. Where do the MEPs stand on this issue?”
“If we are not doing those reviews and putting more public transport in place for people, they will be in their cars and there will be an increase of accidents on the roads.”
“That needs to change. We need more gardaí policing bad driving and higher penalties for repeat offenders because the current system simply is not working. I think it was mentioned by another Senator that the easiest way to make sure the roads are safer is to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads. We need to see major public transport upgrades in order that people are getting out of their cars, which are statistically much more dangerous than being in trains and being on buses. With that in mind, it is disappointing that the NTA has pushed back to 2027 a review that was meant to have been done in 2025, which looked at the possibility of adding more bus stops in Carlow.”
“It is one of the worst roads in the country, yet funding for improvements on that road has still been delayed and stalled in the last NDP round. I am sure we were all shocked by the headlines of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety report showing how often the same people are being arrested again and again for driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. In a 12-month period, 260 people were arrested at least twice, with some being arrested up to ten times. This would also point that the current measures to stop people drinking and driving are not working. We need to see additional measures to reduce dangerous driving. Last year we had the Crowe report, which showed that gardaí tasked with policing the roads were not carrying out their duties. There was a reluctance to carry out their duties around safety and road policing.”
“The numbers in Kilkenny are very similar. Behind all of these numbers are lives and families that have been destroyed and utterly shattered. It is seriously concerning that we are seeing an increase in the number of needless road deaths. We did so well. We made so many improvements and it feels like we are going back to a darker time. Something has to be done to stop this trend. I welcome the action that was taken regarding the N80 in Carlow, which has tragically led to the deaths of five people and two crashes over the last two years. I would also like to know what plans are in place for Yellowford Cross Roads and the N81, which has a high accident rate in Carlow. The N78 going through Castlecomer is another dangerous road. In particular, the N24 in south Kilkenny near Glenmore, is an incredibly dangerous stretch of road.”
“The consequences of road deaths are felt in the silence at the kitchen tables, where an empty chair shows the space where a loved one once sat, in a school desk which now sits empty, in communities that are gathering far too often for funerals instead of celebrations. Every death on our road sends shock waves far beyond the collision itself, leaving families, friends, colleagues and entire towns grappling with sudden and unimaginable loss. Over recent decades, improvements have been made. Road safety has been on the agenda for many decades but at some point it fell off. It is really worrying to see that over the last few years we have seen a sharp rise in the deaths on roads. In Carlow, over the past three years, we have experienced nearly as many fatalities due to traffic incidences as the six years before the pandemic.”
“It should strengthen and not weaken security of tenure. It should recognise that housing is a cornerstone of safety, not a commodity to be gambled with, but the Bill does none of these things. This legislation increases the risk for those living with violence. It is a terrifying prospect for any woman who is right now considering whether she will stay or leave. This approach will not work. The Minister needs to listen to those working in the front-line services for domestic, sexual and gender-based violence to ensure housing policy becomes part of the solution and not another barrier to safety because no woman should ever be forced to choose between violence and homelessness.”
“Women experiencing violence will be hit incredibly hard. The State has committed repeatedly to the idea of a zero tolerance approach to domestic and gender-based violence. It is utterly meaningless, though, when we have legislation like this. I cannot see that this has taken any gendered lens by looking at the impact on domestic violence and women fleeing violence. Our commitment to zero tolerance cannot stop at criminal law or awareness campaigns. It has to be reflected in housing policy because a State that says people need to leave if they are unsafe, while simultaneously pricing women out of the rental market, is not offering protection. It is once again offering empty platitudes. At the very least, this Bill should explicitly protect victims and survivors from displacement into unaffordable rental markets.”
“That is a separate issue and I will bring it up at another stage. Students, who move into new rental properties year after year - because that is the nature of student life - and who have no ability to absorb sudden rent hikes will be pushed further into precarity. Older people who believed they had some security in later life will find that security quietly eroded. The Simon Community report released in recent weeks challenges the assumption that older people are homeowners. Many older people now rely on the private market and the level of homelessness in this age group is growing. This is a vulnerable age group, made up of people who may have fixed incomes or are living on limited pensions. The new market rent system the Minister is introducing will only push levels of homelessness higher for older people.”
“As Senator Clonan has already outlined at length, disabled people who live in private rented accommodation and rely on stability and proximity to services will face disruption and displacement. The average private rental tenancy is three and a half years, so the six-year window will not apply to anyone, including the most vulnerable in our society. In the coming months, we will see more disabled people being priced out of any accessible accommodation that is available. I will make a light segue to note disabled people have not even been consulted on the national development plan. We talk about all the new buildings and rental accommodation we will be building. Have disability clauses been put in for procurement to address inclusion and disability? What is the minimum number of properties we are planning to build with disability metrics?”
“Carers, who are overwhelmingly women already balancing unpaid labour with insecure incomes and living in private rented accommodation will be forced to pay higher rents with fewer protections when their tenancies end or might be evicted because no-fault evictions have been allowed by the Government. Under the scheme, evictions are still possible for so-called small landlords. They can boot tenants out and raise rents to market prices. The Minister might say that will only be possible in a limited set of circumstances. However, rules can be bent and broken. We know that from looking at the number of landlords who have not registered tenancies with the RTB.”
“They are staying in situations of danger because they have nowhere else to live. Perpetrators routinely use housing instability as a tool to coercively control the person they are abusing. Yet, instead of strengthening security of tenure and ring-fencing protections for those fleeing violence, this Bill exposes them to market rents that are simply beyond their reach. This is, therefore, not a gender neutral policy. It will have specific gendered consequences because housing insecurity deeply affects women who are living through domestic violence and those who have no independent income or low incomes. Finding somewhere to move to is already extremely difficult, but with the new market rents, the Bill will make it impossible. Unfortunately, the consequences do not stop there.”
“The consequences of this Bill are staggering and cruel. It is deeply flawed and it shows how much the Minister has surrendered to the lobbying of landlords. The only thing the Minister has done is to allow already-record rents to spiral out of control. He will be aware that almost no rental properties fall within the HAP limit any more. The latest report indicates that no properties within HAP limits are available. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to increase the ceiling for HAP since no properties currently are available that fall within it. It is absurd to be offering this to people as a solution to the crisis. We know from Women's Aid, Safe Ireland and other front-line domestic violence services that housing insecurity is one of the biggest barriers to women leaving abusive relationships.”
“However, when the Government allows rents to spiral beyond reach, brings in market rents and weakens protections that may allow women to leave by exposing them to these rents, we create a cruel calculation for women experiencing abuse. Do they leave the homes they share with their abusers and face unaffordable rents at market rent prices? Do they face homelessness or do they go into the trauma of emergency accommodation? Do they stay and endure violence because at least there are roofs over their heads and the heads of their children? That is not a choice anyone should be forced to make and yet the Minister's Bill makes that choice more likely for many women. With this Bill, landlords will be able to increase rents between tenancies and women experiencing domestic violence will have to leave at any given time and enter a new market.”
“This Bill will push people from what is already a brutal rental market into one that appeases developers and big landlords. It is a market defined by extortionate rents, scarcity and fear. When housing policy creates fear, it is the most vulnerable people in our society who pay the price. I wish to focus on those vulnerable groups today. This is the vulnerability of so many people that I do not believe that the Minister or the rest of the Government has considered when it comes to this legislation. I am particularly focusing on victims and survivors of domestic violence. For a woman experiencing violence at home, housing is not a policy issue. It is the difference between safety and danger. It is the difference between leaving and staying. For some women, it can quite literally be the difference between life and death.”
“Once again, this Government is introducing a Bill that, quite frankly, it is trying to gaslight us with. The very idea that somehow introducing market rent is a good idea and will decrease rents or will in some way increase supply is absurd and insulting. The framing of the Bill from the Government is that it is about protecting renters in some way, yet every renter I have heard from is terrified about the consequences of this and what effect it is going to have on their lives in the coming months. The Government has framed it as technical reform to give security to rental tenancies, but its real-world impact will be anything but technical. It will be a path to homelessness and despair for many. It will be devastating.”
“It is a brilliant culture but lots of companies here might not share that culture because they are foreign companies and they do not know what it means to us culturally to have that time. The fact that we do not have statutory bereavement anyway was a complete eye-opener to me. It also means we need to have this additional legislation for statutory bereavement leave in cases of parental loss of a child. This should not be controversial. It is something that should already be on the Statute Book. I commend Senator Ryan on identifying this need and I hope that while we await this 18-month delay, the Government will seriously think about introducing this regardless. It is the bare minimum for supporting parents who lose a child. I know the Minister knows this and I know I am not alone in this.”
“The UK, New Zealand and Canada have recently introduced paid paternity leave for parents who have lost a child. Australia has Priya's law, whereby employers cannot cancel paid paternity leave if the infant dies. This Bill offers parents greater agency over their experience. All parents should be allowed to take adequate time off to recover and grieve instead of worrying that they are using up their parental time. Women and men both deserve this. I was shocked to learn recently that we do not actually have any statutory bereavement leave. That is just something that is given; employers can just choose to do that should they wish. We have a great culture in Ireland - I thank the Acting Chair for the bit of extra time - where we recognise the loss of any loved one or the loved ones of our loved ones.”