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 20 of 28.
“These are people - families, children and older people - who are all living with this continuous trauma of having no place to call home. Yet the NDP contains no radical change of direction, no credible path to end homelessness and no real strategy to deliver genuinely affordable homes at scale. What we have is not a blueprint for transformation. It is a slim document of less than 50 pages offering big numbers but very little clarity or detail. There is precious little detail about what projects will actually be delivered or when and how we will avoid the delays and overruns that have become the norm, such as the National Children’s Hospital scandal. The Government’s problem is a lack of ambition but also a lack of delivery. Time and again we have seen big promises and targets that quickly slip out of reach.”
“The revised NDP could and should have been a turning point and a moment to finally reset our approach to housing and infrastructure delivery in Ireland. Unfortunately, I see very little ambition or vision in the revised document. One of the biggest infrastructure challenges we have in Ireland is housing. We have over 16,000 people in homeless accommodation and that includes a horrible figure of 5,000 children living in emergency accommodation. It is a shameful record that we are breaking month after month. Of course, that is not telling the whole picture because there is overcrowding in people’s homes, women living in refuges and a generation stuck in their bedrooms, none of whom are counted in those numbers. When we are talking about this we need to emphasise that it is not abstract.”
“I have written a letter to the Taoiseach asking that their demands be acknowledged and acted upon. I hope others will go out and meet them today as well.”
“Let us send a clear and united message from Seanad Éireann that Ireland will not tolerate attacks on our citizens or the targeting of humanitarian missions and will continue to stand up for justice, peace and human rights. I also lend my support to what Senator Boyhan said regarding the women on hunger strike who have been camping outside Leinster House since Sunday night. They are women in their 60s and 70s who feel completely forgotten and isolated by the State. They have come into this Chamber and pleaded with us to stand up for their rights to healthcare, dignity and respect, having been systematically mistreated by the Irish State since the day they were born. It should not take women on hunger strike outside the Houses of the people for us to take action.”
“We have always said Ireland has a proud history of defending those under siege, defending international law and championing human rights. Today, we have to live up to that truth and the expectation people have of us as representatives. I call on every Member of this House, in particular Senators in Government parties, to speak to their ministerial colleagues urgently and the Tánaiste and Minister for foreign affairs without delay to demand full accountability for this attack and insist on the safety of all of the Irish citizens on board. This is not about party politics; it is about our shared commitment to international law, the right of safe passage and the protection of civilians. If this attack on Irish citizens in international waters does not move us to act, then what will?”
“As I am sure all Senators know and as we heard from Senator McCormack, last night there was once again a breach of international law while the Global Sumud Flotilla, a peaceful humanitarian mission sailing in international waters, was attacked by drones. These boats are a threat to absolutely no one. They carry baby formula, water and the most basic forms of aid. The people on board represent hope and huge amounts of courage. Our own colleague, Senator Andrews, is on board as well as 21 other Irish citizens. They find themselves under attack simply for standing up for the concepts of human dignity and human rights. For the Irish citizens and all of the global citizens on board, we must say enough is enough.”
“Why did the Department feel it was okay to ignore the various recommendations we had from all the reviews and, indeed, the joint committee on justice in the previous term? Why were those recommendations not heard in the report?”
“The Minister mentioned the Special Criminal Court. He said some of us support that, but some of us do have an issue with the Special Criminal Court and its process of not having juries because it violates international human rights standards. The Minister did not feed back on how he feels about the differential rights this will create and the implications for the Good Friday Agreement. That is important. The Government signed the Good Friday Agreement more than 25 years ago. The Government was rightly critical of the British Government for its flagrant disregard for the fragile peace we have in the North. Why does the Minister think it is appropriate to create differential rights on the island?”
“Recognising that the Minister feels there are implementation challenges with amendment No. 1, perhaps he will consider amendment No. 2 when we get to that stage, which has slightly different wording, or indeed, maybe he will commit to us that he will take on the essence of our amendments and bring forward his own amendment on Report Stage. We will be readily available to discuss the intricacies of that. The Minister stated that a plaintiff has the right to the final decision on whether there is jury or not. I thought a defendant could then take an appeal against that so there was the right to appeal. No one is saying that we want to have differential treatment when it comes to the right to freedom of expression versus the right to have a good name, but we will have that differential treatment by the removal of juries.”
“I know we are not debating this section yet because we are not debating the Bill in totality, but I urge the Minister to consider withdrawing the abolition of jury trials. If not, at the very least, I urge him to consider the amendments we have tabled today that offer some method of jury trial, both in the interests of the Good Friday Agreement and in the interests of democracy and accountability.”
“The report recommending abolition is based on an understanding of the law as it was in 2022, including a decision of the Court of Appeal, but the Supreme Court ruling which overturned the Court of Appeal decision and returned the full award to the plaintiff came just three weeks after the report publication. By doing so, the Supreme Court ruling swept away the legal basis for this Bill, because the Supreme Court in the Higgins case totally changed the law on how damaged are assessed. What does that all mean? Under the 2009 Act, the number of successful appeals on the basis that juries give disproportionate awards is fewer than five cases out of almost 100. That tells us that the idea that juries give outsized awards is largely based on fantasy and not on fact.”
“This Court of Appeal ruling is the bedrock of the Government's decision to remove jury trials. It apparently provided evidence - I emphasise "apparently" - that the juries gave outsized awards. However, the law on how defamation cases assess damage was then fundamentally changed by the Supreme Court ruling on exactly the same case when it rejected the Court of Appeal ruling, restored the original award to the plaintiff and said it was correct. The publication of the Supreme Court ruling should be the actual basis of legislation in this area and this Bill does not draw from that Supreme Court ruling. It is drawing from the appeal court ruling. As I said, I know the Minister is aware of this but it is important to state it for the record. Why did this all matter?”
“If the Government believes that juries can indeed be trusted in other civil cases, why can they not be trusted in defamation cases? As well as the ousting of the public in the administration of justice in defamation cases only, there are significant other logical and factual flaws behind the decision to remove juries. That brings us to the Higgins case. Guidance to juries on damages was provided after the 2009 Act. I know the Minister will know this. This is as much for my benefit and perhaps that of other colleagues who have not been following this case. In the very first case that guidance was provided to juries, a significant amount was awarded and the defendant appealed the decision and went to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal decided that the award was really outsized and took away 80% of it on appeal.”
“Currently, all of these rights are therefore vindicated by trial by jury, not trial by judge. As it stands, the public have a choice, to a trial by judge or a trial by jury. The removal of the statutory right in defamation cases means you are removing the choice from the public. If this measure is enacted without our amendments, we would create an extraordinary exception. Of all the rights, only with defamation will Irish citizens be deprived of the choice of trial by jury. I ask the Minister to comment on why we are creating such an extraordinary exception in our laws. Surely by the Government's own logic, we should then be abandoning trial by jury in all civil cases equally, for cases of false imprisonment or trespass.”
“The concept of trial by jury is one of our oldest public rights in the democratic process. That we are being asked through this Bill to take the jury out of the question is, I believe, profoundly undemocratic. I cannot fathom why, beyond Senator McDowell's comments about media concerns. People are not out on the streets demanding that this right be removed from them. We have many rights enshrined in our Constitution, including the right to a good name, freedom of speech, the right to assembly, the inviolability of the home, the right to private property, bodily integrity and the liberty of the citizen. They are fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution. All of these rights allow for the plaintiff in the case to be entitled to trial by jury.”
“We had reviews in the Department of justice and of course the Oireachtas joint committee report, which I mentioned before. All the independent reviews have said that we must keep trial by jury. The only outlier is the review by the Department. It is curious to me how the vast majority of reviews say we should keep trial by jury. The central concept of the core of the legal system is democratic principles, specifically in the involvement of the public in the administration of justice. It is really core to our democracy. In fact, hundreds of years before we even had the right to vote, we had the right to trial by jury. That dates back to medieval times and the Magna Carta. I know the Magna Carta is a British document. We have our own version in the crypt of Christchurch.”
“The removal of juries will lead to taking rights away from the people. The justice committee unanimously agreed last term to recommend that jury trials be maintained. The Government is going against the express recommendations of the justice committee, hence the importance of this amendment. The committee heard all sides of the argument and came to the decision that jury trials should be maintained. I would love to hear why the Minister is choosing to ignore those recommendations of the Oireachtas committee. We heard from the Law Reform Commission, which also unanimously recommended the retention of jury trials. This Bill was produced after a report following a review by the Department of justice. There were several reviews. We had a review in 1924, 1930, 1961, 2003, 2007 and 2008, and in 2022. I think that is seven reviews of defamation.”
“In addition to that, this Bill erodes a fundamental piece of the Good Friday Agreement. I am deeply concerned that the Irish Government, as a co-signatory of the Good Friday Agreement, would ever consider taking a step that would see a divergence of rights on this island. We should be working towards greater equalisation. We all saw the fiasco of Brexit and what damage that did to the Good Friday Agreement and the divergence of rights. Both with regard to having an option for a jury trial and in the context of the Good Friday Agreement, I urge the Minister to consider accepting Senator Ryan's amendment or mine. Democracy and rule of law are founded on the principle of people being at the core of administrative justice. I know the Minister has much experience in the legal profession, so I am not telling him something he does not know.”
“If the Bill goes ahead without my amendment, in its current form, we will see a canyon of differential rights between the two jurisdictions on this island and there will be a divergence of rights afforded to litigants. The Minister will no doubt be aware of the fundamental principles of the Good Friday Agreement. One of the fundamental principles is the principle of equivalence of rights and equality protections. Equal rights for people living across the island is one of the cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement, so I take great umbrage with the removal of juries, because it erodes the right of public participation in the justice system and relies too heavily, as Senator McDowell outlined, on judge decisions only, which I believe undermines justice.”
“As the Minister will be aware, since 2022, the law on the method of trial in the North has been amended to bring it into line with the law in Scotland, England and Wales. Specifically, defamation actions are to be tried by a judge alone unless otherwise ordered. That is in the interests of justice. The court has the power to allow for jury trial when it deems it critical for the delivery of justice. This amendment therefore aims to ensure there is uniformity in the method of defamation cases across this island. I would like to take this opportunity to touch on the Good Friday Agreement and to emphasise the incongruity that this new law will bring between the North and the South with respect to access to justice. In the North, it is open to parties in defamation cases to request jury trials in the interests of justice.”
“I thank the Minister for coming in. I am also supporting Senator Ryan's amendment. I know we are not speaking about the amendments together but I have a similar amendment coming in after this. The amendments that both Senator Ryan and I tabled are effectively a fall-back position on the retention of jury trials, with some modification, as recommended by the Oireachtas joint committee on justice. If the Minister insists that the Government will not be moved on the issue of jury trial removal in its entirety, then I urge him to consider this amendment, because it is consistent with the Government's position of delivering judge-only jury trials in defamation actions, a position that I do not agree with, but I think Senator Ryan's amendment and my amendment both propose a sort of halfway house.”
“They deserve better working conditions. Similar to Senator Comyn, I thank everyone who makes the Oireachtas function correctly, including cleaners, waiter staff, cooks, and all of the people who allow us to be able to work hard and do our jobs on a daily basis.”
“I find it shocking that an employer would have a stance of ill-informed criticism because the employees know their conditions better than anybody else. Working rights and fair conditions are crucial. It is not sustainable for them to have no income until September. No one should be facing that. I request the Leader to write to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission on behalf of all the Senators to request a pause on the tendering process for the next contract until these issues are addressed. If the next contract, which is due this year, comes in exactly the same form then these issues will continue until the next contract. We are in the moment now to evoke some sort of change. They deserve industry standards. They deserve retainers. They deserve income protection. They are being abused quite frankly.”
“That colleagues who work alongside us daily are forced to go on the dole is fundamentally wrong. The broadcasters have been incredibly brave in advocating for themselves and standing up against the deeply unfair working practices they face. I commend them on their courage, particularly given the statement by their employer, reported in The Irish Times yesterday, that they have "engaged in ill-informed criticism of their employment terms to further [their] objective". They are entitled to challenge poor working conditions. We are very lucky to have workers' rights in Ireland. In some parts of the world, workers do not have those rights. The broadcast staff are well within their rights to speak out and demand better employment conditions.”
“I lend my support to the comments by Senator Comyn. We heard reports yesterday that 13 of the Oireachtas broadcast unit staff will be signing on the dole for the summer recess. This is appalling. They are our colleagues with whom we work every day. They are fundamental to the effectiveness of what we do. Their live streaming of the proceedings of the Seanad, Dáil and committees is not a little nice-to-have thing; it is fundamental for good democracy, accountability and transparency. It allows members of the public to tune in from wherever they are, follow proceedings across the Oireachtas and hold us accountable as elected representatives. Many of us use those streams to show the people who voted for us in our communities the work we are doing on a daily basis. This facility really strengthens the work we do.”
“I note that plans for service delivery are contained within government initiatives including the programme for Government. However, as far as I can see there is not very much information on Gov.ie of the tangible work being done to achieve these targets. It would be great to have that uploaded so there is some accountability. The development of a formal policy on respite was listed in the action plan for disability services 2024-26 but it was not in the programme for Government. Will the Department commit to do so in the lifetime of this Government?”
“I recognise there are recruitment challenges. The Minister of State might go into a bit more detail on the efforts being made. His remarks were quite general about how recruitment challenges would be addressed. The Minister of State might not be able to answer now on data and I might ask that the Department come back to me on this. Can we get a commitment for an audit of services and need? Can we start collecting data on the number of rejected applications for respite so we have a sense of how many people are on the waiting list? Without that data on how many people are applying, how many have been rejected, how many have been on the waiting lists and how long they have been there, we cannot really map the extent of the issue.”
“Could the Minister of State give an update on funding for Sycamore House, a dedicated respite facility in Kilkenny? I am aware that SOS Kilkenny had been promised an extra €1.5 million in funding. Can the Minister of State speak on that? Today is its 50th anniversary so it would be nice to have confirmation that funding is on the way. In this context, will the Minister of State update the House on the plans to improve respite services for adults with disabilities, older people and children’s disability services? Can he commit to better data collection so that we know the scale of need in respite? Without knowing those numbers, I doubt we will ever get to the stage where we are properly resourcing the services.”
“The respite it provides enables families to continue their care role while ensuring service users receive appropriate and dignified care. It is really unfair that families rely on respite. They face long waiting lists, reduced availability and the increased stress on their household that comes with that. Many care givers are completely exhausted and risk burnout. We have spoken many times to caregivers, particularly during the election campaign, many of whom are elderly themselves. They talk about how increasingly difficult it is to manage their care responsibilities. They have been calling out for more respite as a way to transition their loved ones from the family home to independent living. SOS Kilkenny, in particular, needs a second home to be able to provide a more comprehensive respite service.”
“It is clear that many of the shortages in respite service delivery could possibly be mitigated against policy oversight. Skills, Opportunities, Success Kilkenny, known as SOS Kilkenny, is one example of a respite provider to adults with intellectual disabilities and autism across Kilkenny city and county. It is a fantastic organisation. This week marks its 50th anniversary and demonstrates its role as a cornerstone in the disability sector in Kilkenny. Its services include offering community-based day locations and a part-time short-break service to individuals. This gives people the opportunity to experience increased independence and build lifelong skills. SOS Kilkenny provides respite care in one home but it is fully booked for this year and the only other respite it can provide is on an emergency basis.”
“Transparency is needed around HSE respite data too. In January the HSE could not provide explicit data on the average number of overnight respite beds. It noted that data on respite beds is not routinely compiled by disability services. We need to compile this data. It is simply not good enough to say it is not available. That same month, the HSE stated there was no centrally maintained waiting list for respite services regarding individuals whose respite has been refused. How can this be? How can we know the real need if we are not recording the actual requests that are being made? While the disability support application management tool is welcome progress, greater transparency on the patient data and available respite resources must be ensured. The absence of a formal policy on respite is also unseemly.”
“I am here to speak about respite and care delivery. Respite is a crucial aspect of disability service provision and offers those with disabilities, elderly people and those who care for them critical and much-needed support. The role of respite service delivery within the disability policy has been labelled as a key priority for the Government and the HSE and improvements in this area in the latest programme for Government have included an action plan for disability services. However, like many other areas in our health service, respite delivery is experiencing severe strain and increased pressure. The respite investment plan announced by the former Minister of State, Anne Rabbitte last year, stated that a 40% increase in provision would be needed for known unmet need according to the disability capacity review.”
“We cannot keep revisiting our past piecemeal and asking survivors to relive their trauma just to be heard. The commission must be all-encompassing once and for all. It must include sexual, physical and emotional abuse, forced family separation and the system of institutional control that allowed it all to happen, because the truth does not come in parts and neither should justice.”
“We are saying to survivors of forced adoption, to mothers who still do not know where their babies are buried and to families excluded from redress schemes because of arbitrary timelines that their pain is not enough. Let us remember that just last week the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill passed by the Government excluded many women and children who suffered in the so-called mother and baby homes. This exclusion was not just a technicality. It was the arbitrary shutting out of anyone who had not lived in one of these homes for more than six months. That has caused real harm and pain to the people who were excluded. If we are serious about truth, justice and reconciliation, we cannot keep siloing suffering.”
“Our thoughts this week and in the coming weeks should be with the mothers, children and families affected by this awful scenario. We also have other sites like it, such as Bessborough House. Catherine Corless, working without funding or any fanfare, uncovered the truth of what happened to the Tuam babies, the unmarked graves, the hidden past and the institutional silence. What she revealed was not just a local scandal; it was a national reckoning. However, to this day, we have not fully responded to that reckoning. We have not given those children or their mothers the justice they deserve. Now, once again, with this limited commission we are drawing artificial boundaries around suffering.”
“Last week's announcement of a commission of investigation into historical abuse is welcome, but it is not enough. The scope of the inquiry is too narrow and by design it risks repeating the mistakes of the past. Sexual abuse is one part, a truly devastating part, of a much wider, darker history in our State. It is a history that includes physical violence, emotional cruelty, forced family separation and the selling of Irish children into adoption overseas. This all happened with the knowledge of the State, and often with the complicity of the institutions of both church and State. Nowhere is this more visible than in Tuam, where work begins this week on the painful process of the exhumation of the remains of the 796 babies and children buried there.”
“It is clear that without urgent international intervention this systematic dispossession will continue unabated. We need now to firmly and clearly condemn this violence, support human rights defenders from both Palestine and Israel, and call for the European Union and the wider international community to act as it relates to the West Bank. There must be consequences for those who use violence to displace civilians and there must be accountability for those who fund, protect and arm these illegal outposts. Above all, there must be solidarity with those, like Nassar and our friends in Breaking the Silence, who continue to resist injustice in the most dangerous of circumstances. I seek that we have a debate in this Chamber on this issue as it relates specifically to the West Bank.”
“These are co-ordinated efforts to make Palestinian life in the West Bank completely unlivable. Since October 2023, at least 30 entire villages have been forcibly emptied. This is settler colonialism and it is apartheid. Last week, Nassar said today there is an attack, tomorrow there will be an attack and the day after there will be another attack; and they have grown used to this new reality. He also said the agricultural villages of area C are now breathing their last breaths. When Nassar was here, he told me about how his grandfather carried his father away from their home during the Nakba and how his father had done the same with him, and how he had no intention of leaving his home. Now, though, it looks inevitable that he and his family will be forced to flee their home in the very near future.”
“I heard from them last week that the residents of a village in the southern Jordan Valley near Jericho have begun packing up their few remaining belongings and are preparing to flee after enduring years of settler harassment and military-backed violence. They were given a 48-hour ultimatum from armed settlers, and that was the final straw. This community, like so many others before it, is being erased. This is not an isolated incident; it is part of a chilling and now familiar pattern across the West Bank, which sees the establishment of illegal settler posts - illegal under both international law and Israeli law - on or inside Palestinian villages. These are bases for terror, from where homes are burned, flocks of animals killed or stolen, food and water stores destroyed and families threatened until the only choice left is to flee.”
“I wish to raise the issue of the escalating violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, how these communities face escalating violence every day and how that has intensified dramatically over the last 21 months under the cover of war but, in reality, stems from a long-standing and deliberate campaign of displacement. Just a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting two extraordinary individuals, Nassar from a village in the south Hebron hills and a courageous Israeli human rights defender from an organisation called Breaking the Silence, which is made up of former IDF soldiers who have chosen to speak out about the reality of the occupation they have participated in.”
“(7C) (a) The Minister shall prescribe regulations for the purposes of the public consultation requirements necessitated under subsection (7B), and to identify and provide for the screening, assessment and other determinations necessary under subsection (7B). (b) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere in this Act, this subsection will commence on enactment.”,”.”
“I move amendment No. 44: In page 13, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(g) by the insertion of the following subsection: “(7B) (a) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere in this section, a planning authority shall not grant an extension to the duration of a permission under this section, except where— (i) the effect of this section in extending the duration of the permission consequent on this section will result in an alteration of a minimal period only, or (ii) in circumstances where the development the subject of the permission, is— (I) a project or activity which falls within the scope of Article 6(1) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998, that— (A) the public have been consulted, (B) the requirements of the Transboundary Convention have been observed in respect of any such consultation, and (C) that in an effective decision on whether to amend and thus extend the duration of the permission or not under subsection (6), that due consideration has been taken account of the comments and outcome received during the consultation, and that— (iii) all further screening determinations and assessments required to comply with the State’s obligations as a member of the European Union, have been conducted and complied with given that any consideration of altering the duration of the permission under subsection (6), is effectively a revisiting of the authorising decision for the activity or development in question, including under— (I) Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, (II) the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, (III) the Birds Directive, (IV) the Habitats Directive, and (V) the Water Framework Directive, in particular Article 4 thereof, and (iv) that consultation and assessment obligations under the Transboundary Convention have been fully complied with in the context of and decision to amend the duration of the permission under subsection (6) is effectively a revisiting of the authorisation for the activity or development in question.”
“I move amendment No. 42: In page 13, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(g) by the insertion of the following subsection: (7B) (a) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere in this section, a planning authority shall not grant an extension to the duration of a permission under this section, unless such an extension is for a minimal period only. (b) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere in this Act, this subsection will commence on enactment.”,”.”
“I move amendment No. 40: In page 12, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(1C) (a) In line with a use it or lose it principle, development must begin construction within a specified timeframe after receiving planning permission. (b) Penalties for non-compliance will include ineligibility for any extension or alteration of planning permission provided for in this Act.”,”.”
“I move amendment No. 39: In page 12, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(1C) Where a permission has been extended under subsection (1A), if substantial works have not commenced 2 years from the point the permission was granted, the permission shall expire.”,”.”
“I move amendment No. 38: In page 12, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(1C) Where a person has made an application under subsection (1) in respect of a permission that has been granted that has not commenced, that person shall not be entitled to make any further applications under subsection (1) in respect of other permissions that have been granted to that person that have not commenced until the authority is satisfied that substantial works were carried out pursuant to the permission concerned in the initial application.”,”.”
“I move amendment No. 37: In page 12, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(1C) In line with a use it or lose it principle, development must begin construction within a specified timeframe after receiving planning permission, and penalties for non-compliance will include the withdrawal of permission for the development.”,”.”
“I move amendment No. 36: In page 12, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(1C) A contractor who is in receipt of State subsidies must publish an annual profit and loss account, an auditor’s report, and a balance sheet in order to qualify for funding.”,”.”
“To be clear on the record, a briefing is not pre-legislative scrutiny. A briefing is a briefing. It is not the same as pre-legislative scrutiny.”
“I will correct my correction. Eight units could fit on a tennis court. Forgive me; it is very late. If eight units could fit on a tennis court, they would be minuscule. I just wished to point that out. The Minister of State made reference to the Vienna housing model. The Vienna housing model is based on loads of shared amenities and diversity of housing type to avoid creating slum-like developments. That diversity of accommodation type is not referenced in the Government amendments. It is obviously not just about size; it is also about having fewer windows and lifts. All of those things matter and will impact people's quality of life. I will again make the point that receiving these amendments at 5 p.m., or whatever time it was, late on a Friday cannot be considered advance warning.”