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 22 of 28.
“The State’s overreliance on private operators for what is supposed to be a public service is now generating challenges and costs for individuals who rely on so-called public service transport routes. A private provider can decide at any moment, unilaterally, to pull a route. The results for communities are isolation for older people, disruption for workers and considerable additional car dependency, which is not in line with our climate targets. We face €26 billion in fines. The Environmental Protection Agency said recently that we may reach only 23% of our emissions target, not the 51% reduction required. Instead of accepting that fines might come, maybe we should be investing some of the equivalent moneys in advance to lower our emissions.”
“That is a hard act to follow. We know public transport outside our major urban centres is, to one degree or another, poor or practically non-existent. I want to raise serious concerns about the issue of rural transport, particularly in Carlow and Kilkenny, where families are being let down time and again by a system that is underfunded, pretty complicated and failing in many cases to realise its basic purpose. In April this year, a private provider, JJ Kavanagh and Sons, removed stops at Castlecomer, Crettyard and Athy from the 717 route, which is the Clonmel–Dublin Airport route. This decision was made with no public consultation and has left several communities completely cut off from having a bus route through their towns. I have written to the NTA about this and have heard absolutely nothing in response.”
“The CEO of the Irish Cancer Society said, "This is not just a delay - it can be life altering." I want to make clear I am not in any way criticising the staff of St. Luke's Hospital or any other hospital. They do Trojan work in extremely difficult circumstances. Again, the Government is letting people down. We need a debate in the new term on the waiting times for cancer patients. We need an update from the Minister for Health, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, on what urgent steps are being taken to address these delays and we need to have a discussion on regional disparities for cancer and other treatments. If these waiting times get longer, we risk the health outcomes of people across this country. In a country as rich as Ireland, this is simply not good enough.”
“Kilkenny and Waterford hospitals are two of the lowest performing hospitals in the country and both serve large swathes of the south east. Therefore, across the region, cancer services are seriously underperforming. When people get a cancer diagnosis, their world stops. They have panic, all the concerns that come with that and the confusion and fear for their own lives, and for their families and friends. Their whole life is thrown into disarray and all they want is to get started with treatment as soon as possible. We all know the quicker people get treatment, the better their health outcomes. Delayed treatment is not just delay, it is inextricably linked to how successful that treatment will be.”
“I also pay my respects to the victims of Srebrenica and their families. It is particularly difficult to stand for a minute's silence when we know there is also a genocide happening in Gaza. While standing I was asking myself what day we will be standing to commemorate all the Palestinians who have been slaughtered. This week, The Journal investigates team published figures after analysing the wait time for people who had been diagnosed with cancer from diagnosis to the start of their treatment. The target of the national cancer control programme is to start treatment in 90% of cases within 15 days of receiving a diagnosis. To read that in Carlow and Kilkenny, which are served by St. Luke's Hospital in Kilkenny, these targets are being met in only 65% of cases is really shocking.”
“I believe this Bill is very much a litmus test of that, of our compassion and maturity as a legislature, and of how seriously we take reproductive health and care. I am deeply disappointed that a timed amendment has been put on this Bill. I do not think it reflects any urgency or sincerity. As Senator Ryan has said, this is not a party political issue. This is a women’s rights issue. I know it has cross-party support in the Chamber among women and among men as well, so the amendment is really disappointing. It is not a good sign of things to come if a Bill that has so much benefit for women across society has a timed amendment on it. I am very disappointed and concerned that this is the way things will go in the next four years.”
“Policy should reflect empathy, fairness and the lived realities of people. The Bill aligns with those values by providing paid leave during pregnancy loss and ensuring workers are not forced to pick between their annual leave and financial security and taking time to properly grieve and heal. I support the Bill’s inclusion of an opt-in confidential register so that babies can be officially recognised should parents wish, as this gives dignity to life no matter how short. It is about ensuring that, within the spaces of our records, laws and public life, that pregnancy loss is not invisible. It is often said that you can tell a lot about a society by how it treats people in their most vulnerable moments.”
“It affects women in every part of this country. Behind every one of those losses is a woman and her partner who may be suffering in silence, expected to return to work as though nothing had happened. I particularly commend this Bill for including partners and recognising the difficult role they face when affected by pregnancy loss, which is an additional stigma men face when they have to express these things. From a feminist perspective, this Bill is a powerful acknowledgement that reproductive labour and reproductive grief are very real things, that women’s bodies and experiences must no longer be ignored in our labour laws. It is very much a rejection of the old structures that women are expected to endure quietly and a step towards laws that respect the complexity and cost of female embodiment.”
“I thank the Sinn Féin Senators and particularly Senator Ryan for introducing this legislation. I speak in full support of it. It is important to note the bravery Senator Ryan has consistently shown when she has tabled amendments and legislation, and particularly today in sharing her story, because it is not easy and I know it will not be easy for any other Senator here who may be doing the same. This is a Bill that recognises the very deep emotional, physical and psychological impact of pregnancy loss and the trauma that goes along with it. For too long, this form of grief has been completely unseen in our society. It has been unspoken in our workplaces and our legislation and it is too often absent from our social discourse. Yet, as we have heard, one in four pregnancies ends in loss, a figure that is probably highly underestimated.”
“Journalists and activists must be protected from the chilling effects that we see with SLAPPs. That is occurring in Ireland but we know it is also occurring all around the world. In particular, we are seeing a huge increase in SLAPPs in the past decade in Europe. I support some aspects of the Bill but I believe amendments will be needed on Committee Stage. I will bring amendments forward and I look forward to discussing them with the Minister.”
“We must ensure that we listen to someone with that experience and from that position. The Minister previously supported keeping jury trials, only last year, but now we have a different perspective. I apologise if he did so in his opening statement but maybe the Minister could provide clarity on where that change came from. This Bill is something of a halfway house. It proposes some important changes. However, I do not believe it goes far enough. It does not provide the full defence that our democracy needs against legal intimidation. If we believe in protecting the right to a good name, we must also believe in protecting the right to freedom of speech to hold the powerful to account and be able to speak truth without the risk of financial ruin. We must protect the right to transparency and accountability and the freedom of the media.”
“The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, has been clear that this Bill must be amended so that it fully transposes the EU directive. If we fail to do so now, we risk failing to meet our obligations by the deadline and, more importantly, we are failing the people who need protection today, when it comes to SLAPPs. Second, the abolition of juries in court defamation trials raises serious concerns. The arguments of delays and inconsistency have been dealt with in the Higgins case where the Supreme Court laid out clear guidance on how juries should operate in defamation trials. I do not believe the idea that this is a problem is true in actual fact. We have heard from the former High Court judge Bernard Barton. He has spoken about the dangers of removing juries from cases.”
“While this Bill gestures towards the EU anti-SLAPP directive, it does not go far enough. The Minister said there will be other measures put in place later to address that. Perhaps we could put those in this Bill as well. The Bill limits protection on defamation cases alone. SLAPPs occur under many different legal headings, not just in relation to defamation but also under privacy, data protection and misuse of process. SLAPPs are having a chilling effect on communities. They are preventing local communities and small organisations from expressing their concerns on matters where there is a clear public interest. This is happening. Perhaps the Minister and I can speak separately about specific cases where this is happening in Ireland.”
“The mechanisms proposed, namely, the early dismissal of unfounded claims, cost protection and declarations of abuse, are welcome and they follow a growing recognition throughout Europe that legal systems must not be weaponised against journalists, activists, human rights defenders or whistleblowers. The simplified public interest defence, that of fair and reasonable publication, is another positive measure which provides some clarity and protection to responsible reporting. The provisions for correcting online defamation are, in principle, appropriate responses to the new, modern information environment in which we find ourselves. However, there are three areas where I feel the Bill in its current form falls short, and where I believe we need to push for amendments. I will certainly table amendments on the next Stage of the Bill.”
“Yes. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Defamation (Amendment) Bill. The Bill is both necessary and overdue and I welcome steps being taken to modernise our defamation laws and rebalance the rights of freedom of expression and the right to a good name and to respond to the rapidly evolving digital environment. However, while I welcome elements of the Bill, it is a missed opportunity in some key respects, particularly in how it protects or fails to protect democratic speech and public interest journalism. I will start with the positives. The provisions to deter strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs, are a step forward. We know these cases are not about reputation. Often they are about power. They are not brought with the intention of winning but to intimidate and silence.”
“We see this morning that Palestine GAA is still waiting for visas for children who were supposed to come here in the very near future. Their host families and the volunteers are ready. All of them have been left in limbo. We hear that the Department of justice has not provided any updates as the deadline looms for their visas. I urge the Tánaiste to take up this issue. He needs to make it his personal responsibility to get these visas sorted out both for the group from Palestine GAA and for the children on the sick list who are coming to Ireland for sanctuary. I ask the House that we appeal for this to be done before next week's recess.”
“I am fed up with the platitudes, the notion that Ireland is doing better than everyone else and the taking of the moral high ground. What we have actually gotten from this Government is platitudes. The Tánaiste has said we need more than just words, but we cannot manage to process visas for critically ill children who are living in a war zone. We see this pattern: words over action, and process over principle. Children are dying not because we cannot help but we choose not to do so. We choose to delay processing their visas. I feel that, in this way, we are failing and this Government is failing the children of Gaza. There is no other government. There is no abstract Civil Service. It is this Government that has failed to do this.”
“We continuously hear from this Government that we need real actions and yet on the other hand the Government cannot sort out visas for these sick children. Particularly devastating is that there have been reports in The Irish Times that at least one of those children is now dead. That child died while waiting for our Government as it dithered to get visas sorted. I do not need to tell the Leader how angry I am and how angry people throughout this country are that critically ill children from Gaza who were promised sanctuary and urgent treatment in Ireland were failed. The promise has been broken in the most devastating way. We do not know how many others of those children have died but one is certainly too many.”
“In 2024, the Government made a commitment to bring 30 seriously ill children from Gaza to Ireland for lifesaving treatment. This was a scheme many of us welcomed. However, so far only 12 of those children have arrived here. What is happening to the other children? We have heard there is an issue with their visas. There seems to be some sort of spat between the Department of Health and the Department of justice. How is it that two of our own Departments cannot manage to process emergency visas for siblings of extremely ill children who are living in the catastrophe that is Gaza? Surely this is something that could be sorted out immediately. Do those little children know they are waiting to be evacuated? Do their parents or siblings know? Are they waiting and waiting while starving and in terror of bombs and snipers?”
“There is no logic there when we are talking on one side about a health-led approach. I am aware it is not the Minister of State's Department but rather the Department of enterprise, but I recognise that the Minister of State is sitting at the Cabinet level and I would request she have those discussions and push back a little bit on that decision, which I believe is a mistake when we consider our relationship with alcohol in Ireland.”
“We have loopholes in alcohol advertising, for example, with the 0.0% products, that allow children to see those billboards. Those ads can be on television or at bus stops. Those loopholes should not be allowed to exist. In addition, the Government has said it will not enforce the health labelling approach. Originally, two years ago, the Minister had agreed we would have health label warnings for alcohol products. Now we have seen a roll-back on that. This is really troubling when, on the one hand, we are talking about having a health-led approach and then, on the other hand, we are rolling back these measures that would contribute to highlighting the health concerns around alcohol. Alcohol has destroyed families in Ireland. The decision to not enforce a health warning is really contradictory.”
“I do not want us in 20 years' time to be looking at a redress scheme, for example, because we failed people who were trapped in cycles of intergenerational trauma and substance abuse due to structural inequalities and the ongoing criminalisation, which, let us be honest, predominately affects young, working-class people. I also lend my support Senator McCarthy's contribution on alcoholism. Alcoholism affects every family in Ireland, including my own, and it is something that is totally normalised in Irish culture. We have a fantastic reputation for being alcoholics. How horrifying. That is not necessarily our fault. Ireland has a history of intergenerational trauma from many different scandals. I do not believe, however, that as a society we are doing a huge amount to tackle it.”
“Following communication with the community drug sector, we have heard that these consultations have not been sufficient or meaningful and have not included members and services effectively. Meaningful consultation that does include service users and members will be critical for the next drugs strategy. Given the instrumental work that the community sector performs in the implementation of the strategy, its input really is key. I believe this is not just a question of policy, it is a question of values. We as a country have failed so many people. Now we have to make this decision about prioritising those people, the most vulnerable who really need this help.”
“The Social Democrats support the full implementation of the citizens' assembly recommendations. A key recommendation from the citizens' assembly was effective stakeholder involvement in the implementation of the national drugs strategy. A community-based approach must be fundamental for evaluating the outgoing strategy and developing the new one. We have, however, heard from community-based addiction services that they perceive these consultations to be very tick box and top down. This is not good enough to respond appropriately to the needs of communities when it comes to tackling addiction. We have heard that the Department has engaged 250 stakeholders.”
“If we truly want to reduce the influence of drug dealers in criminal networks in our communities, we need to stop the demand by helping people not turn to substance abuse in the first place. That means access to therapy, addiction services, mental health supports and community-led harm reduction. Continually punishing people who need help does not do them or society any good. While most of the discourse around drug use and addiction is often centred around Dublin, these problems exist in every community, rural and urban, like the ones the Minister of State and I both live in. We need services and supports throughout the country as well so that they are accessible and integrated into wider social supports at very specific low-level community levels.”
“This includes understanding the deep links between substance abuse, poverty, trauma, exclusion and intergenerational trauma. These are very real issues for many people and it is their lived reality. When those issues are not addressed, people often turn to substance abuse as a coping mechanism. That is really a symptom of how society has failed them. Far too many people end up in prison because they were denied access to mental health care, therapy, proper housing or, indeed, a pathway out of poverty. Our prisons are full of people who deserve to be better served by access to care and not incarceration. We need to be taking a holistic approach when we are looking at responding to people dealing with substance abuse.”
“The assembly's findings reflected what many people already knew, that the current approach and system is failing. Mr. Paul Reid, chair of the citizen's assembly, said "We were stunned by the length of time it takes to introduce even modest changes". While the national drugs strategy emphasises prevention, reduction and treatment, the reality in the implementation on the ground is very different. Our streets, our prisons and our accident and emergency departments are all full of the consequences of our current approach to drug use. None of those spaces are equipped to provide the kind of trauma-informed and health-based interventions that actually change people's lives. We need an approach to drug use through the lens of public health and social justice.”
“It is about the removal of criminal penalties for individuals struggling with addiction or substance use. This really matters because it is recognising that those people need help. They do not need a criminal record or time in prison. We must ensure that we use this pivotal moment of the new strategy to put in place a framework that is genuinely effective, equitable and rooted in the needs of our communities with communication, consultation and reaching out into communities where the problems are, where the solutions are, and where the knowledge and expertise are, particularly the expertise of those who know how to support those most in need. The citizens' assembly did vital work in hearing directly from communities, experts and those with lived experience of substance abuse.”
“I thank the Minister of State. I think it is the first time I have had the chance to have a discussion with her in the Chamber. It is good to see her here. We are obviously having this debate in the context of the new national strategy on drugs, and it is within that framework that the Government's approach to the drugs policy is at a bit of a crossroads. I do not believe we can continue with strategies that punish instead of support and that stigmatise instead of heal. The Social Democrats believe it requires a complete shift from a model of criminalisation to one of care and prevention. We must move towards the decriminalisation model that prioritises a public health-led approach. This has been proposed by many advocates, including all of the people in the citizens' assembly.”
“We need to keep on this as a collective and I have seen so much passion from all of the contributors today. I hope that, on a cross-party basis and across the floor, we can continue to identify other strategies we can push for on a legislative basis because they are needed. I know that across all parties and none people are passionate about this issue. We need a collaboration because without that we will be talking about the same issues in 20 years' time.”
“Why does violence against women happen? It is because of the patriarchy. It is because we have had decades of decades, hundreds of years, where it has been acceptable to be violent towards women. We cannot just call on individual men, although allies are always welcome. It is great to have strong voices of men in the Seanad calling this out, of course, but we need a really strong response at primary school level whereby we model good behaviours. There are some amazing male mentorship programmes out there where men are engaging young men. These are so important for bringing on healthy, positive behaviours. I know that is not what this Bill today is about but I want to stress that the Bill is only a contribution towards how we tackle gender-based violence, violence against women and domestic violence.”
“It gives our justice system the tools to respond proportionally to serious, ongoing or violent breaches. Survivors deserve to know when an order is made and that it will be backed up with real, meaningful consequences. This Bill is about ensuring a piece of paper from the courts offers more than just symbolic protection. It offers real deterrence, real consequences and real safety. We cannot solve domestic violence through changes to the justice system alone. We need a multi-track approach towards zero tolerance across our society. I heard our male colleagues speaking today about what men need to do, but that is not an individualistic thing. We need a strategy from the Department of education that comes into schools and looks at culture, media and the arts across the landscape.”
“Far too often, survivors are granted protection orders only to be retraumatised by persistent breaches, stalking or the perpetrator showing up at their homes and workplaces. These actions are not minor. They leave the victim, the survivor, in a constant state of fear. They can never switch off or relax. They cannot get a good night's sleep because they never know when they will be targeted by the perpetrator again. Those actions are part of a pattern of coercive control and need to be treated as such in law. I welcome this Bill, which will enable prosecutors to use their discretion to bring indictable charges for breaches where appropriate, which should lead to a more robust court response in the protection of survivors. I particularly welcome the move to create an indictable offence under section 33 .”
“We have seen high levels of domestic violence protection orders be breached by perpetrators, placing victims, often women, in serious concern for their safety and their lives. This Bill sends a clear message that breaching a court order in the context of domestic violence is not some form of technicality. It is a breach of an order that leaves a person, again mostly women, who sought the order fearing for their safety, and for their children's lives if they are involved. When there is no real threat or deterrent, this woman shall always be looking over her shoulder. She will be afraid to look at the phone or to answer the door. This can lead to a life of going out only when it is absolutely necessary and having to be accompanied by family or friends - basically a total loss of autonomy and living in constant fear.”
“As we heard already, domestic violence and violence against women continues to be an epidemic across the island and that is why we need this Bill. Since 2020, 37 women have been killed in the South and 27 women have been killed in the North of the country. The vast majority of those women were killed in their own home. I also want to mark the latest tragic killing of Sarah Montgomery, who was killed in Donaghadee. She was a pregnant mother of two. I remember her today, her friends, her family and especially her two children. It is for this reason I am proud the cross-party group is using our Private Members' time to carry this Bill forward. Domestic violence must be treated seriously within the courts.”
“I appreciate the intervention of Senator Comyn, but the legal age for children is 18 for a reason. We deem anyone under 18 as a child and it is not appropriate for us to make a distinction between a younger or older child when they are witnessing domestic abuse. A boy of 17, an example the Senator gave, watching his mother being abused will suffer long-term psychological trauma. We spoke about hypervigilance, coercive control and a child perhaps being abused but there being no evidence that can be brought forward in a case. The exclusion of children because we deign them to be older children is deeply inappropriate. A 17-year-old as a child in law for a reason.”
“This amendment is so important because it takes the family as a whole unit and in its broadest sense. When a child witnesses domestic violence, that is a form of child abuse. That is why this amendment should be accepted.”
“I commend Senator Ryan on her bravery and honesty. It is very difficult to speak about personal issues in the Chamber. It takes incredible strength so well done and thank you. It is important that people do because it adds so much colour and weight to what we are talking about. So often we talk about these things in legalese terms and it loses the meaning in many ways. As Senator Ryan stated, intergenerational trauma is real. People can find themselves in recurring patterns of abusive relationships when they have witnessed abuse as children. That is a common trend and a normal thing to happen. This is particularly the case if people do not have access to proper therapy. We know we have challenges in Ireland when it comes to people being able to access mental health supports.”
“That is my request. I urge the Minister of State and the Department to make progress in that regard so that we are not sitting here in six months' time or in a year's time having the same conversations about adult safeguarding. We can look back at debates from previous Dáileanna and Seanaid where this has been discussed. On that basis, I question the urgency of the Government's commitment to doing that.”
“The Minister of State could correct me if I am wrong, but it is a glaring gap if HSE social workers cannot meet residents in private nursing homes in that they do not have the right to enter them. The whole point of a social worker is to examine the conditions in a nursing home, and if they cannot do that, it is incredibly problematic if it takes a documentary film maker to go in and investigate the situation. We should take a rights-based approach to these conversations. We should take a rights-based approach to all of these various issues. That should be at the core of our legislation. Given that 81% of nursing homes are in the private sector and are being run for profit, we are not focusing on a rights-based approach. If we take a rights-based approach to the care of older people in society, we will have better outcomes for them.”
“We must see this as a precipice and that we choose to take this action and put the systems in place. I accept the HSE has a safeguarding policy, but it does not necessarily have a remit over the private sector. We have a public sector model with a safeguarding policy. I hope all of the private sector organisations are obligated to have their own safeguarding policy. Perhaps the Minister of State could respond to me on that in regard to how it links in in terms of compliance with the HSE policy. While we might expect HSE nursing homes to have a safeguarding policy, it would be interesting to know if the same level of compliance is expected of the private sector nursing homes. Does it really matter if inspections are not taking place?”
“It has come up again and again in this Chamber, as it relates to various scandals, which reinforces the need for adult safeguarding legislation. The gap in that regard is leading to systemic failures for the most vulnerable in society. We are in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Linked to that is the idea of mandatory reporting when abuses of vulnerable adults are encountered, much like the system we have for mandatory reporting of abuse against children. I question why it has taken this long for the Government to take action because we have had scandal after scandal. I hope we are not sitting here in six months still calling for adult safeguarding legislation when some other horrific case arises.”
“Research has shown that the quality of care delivered by private systems compared with public ones is systemically worse. The majority of nursing homes are run for profit – 81% in 2023, which indicates the vast majority of them. The reality is that private models lead to worse outcomes for people. We in Ireland have the most privatised care of older people in communities of anywhere in Europe. Senator Costello referred also to another key issue, which is the lack of adult safeguarding legislation. We spoke about this at length since I became a Senator. I know there are plans to introduce legislation. Senator Clonan, for example, has plans to do so. It is also a commitment in the programme for Government. This is urgent. It is something that needs to be fast-tracked. It is not something on which we can sit on our laurels any more.”
“We have a reliance in Ireland on the private sector for the delivery of many different services, but especially for the care of older persons. That is a big issue here. Outsourcing the care of our loved ones to for-profit companies is a deeply problematic model. As soon as we outsource the care of any vulnerable person, be it an older person or a vulnerable younger person or adult, to the private sector, which involves the concept of profit, we then look at margins and how we can make the most money. That is often how we see the private sector working. I accept that is not the case with all homes. Senator Ryan made that point as well. However, when we have a model based on private care, this is an inevitability. For that reason I would like to see an expansion of the public model to all nursing homes.”
“It has already been referenced that we have had scandal after scandal in Ireland involving the care of a lot of vulnerable people. We spoke earlier this week about the Farrelly commission. There does seem to be a pattern involving vulnerable people and older people in communities. HIQA was set up in response to previous scandals. It is ostensibly responsible for inspection and monitoring of conditions in these homes, yet the operating model of HIQA's inspections are not meaningful and do not have credibility. The inspections must be reviewed as they are not effective or meaningful in their current form. We heard that not all homes even come under its remit. HIQA is also incredibly understaffed and under-resourced. Senator Costello spoke powerfully about those matters in her intervention.”
“I thank the Minister of State and the other contributors. We were all appalled and disgusted by the "RTÉ Investigates" programme, which made for really disturbing viewing. It showed how older people in our communities are being neglected and failed by those responsible for their care. I worry about the reactionary response we take when we see a documentary or TV show that precipitates discussion. It makes us take action and have statements. While I understand the drive for that, my concern is that it means we are reacting and not being proactive. It comes from all the things we have heard from Senators Costello and Nicole Ryan about the challenges with HIQA, in that we are reacting to a documentary instead of having a system in place to catch these things in the first place.”
“This is about survivors getting their needs met, their health needs that only exist as a consequence of the abuse they received in these institutions in the first place.”
“We did hear last week that the Health (Amendment) Act card was originally designed for hepatitis survivors and that, in the instance of survivors of institutional abuse, they might not have the same medical needs. We have heard reports and I went back and had a discussion with people and that is simply is not the case. Many survivors have both physical and long-term mental health conditions as a direct consequence of their time in these institutions. We are systemically failing them if we fail to provide this. A lot of them are already older, much older, so they might have a medical card. Having the HAA one will make all the difference, and that is why it is so critical. I lend my support to what Senator Higgins said.”
“This is particularly pertinent because of the human rights abuses and violations that survivors experienced but it really is best practice for the service users or recipients of any scheme to be consulted on their experiences. This amendment is designed to get a full understanding of those experiences. It is very simple. I hope the Minister will consider adopting it because I do not think it is a controversial one. It is best practice. It would be good faith to take on this amendment, recognising the opinions of survivors and making sure they are acted upon in future schemes.”
“This will include applications received and processed and the range and uptake of supports so we can assess the supports that were provided and the frequency of the uptake. This data could disaggregated and we could find it out based on age and where people are from. The summary of appeals or complaints is very important to assess people's experiences within the system. Without the last piece of an evaluation of survivor experiences of the scheme, we are not responding and we will not develop and make sure new schemes take on the critique and criticism of survivors, which is fair criticism, to make sure this onwards scheme is appropriate. It is really about lessons learned. We should hear about evaluations. This is true for all monitoring and evaluation of any supports provided by the Government or the State.”