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 23 of 28.
“I fully support Senator Ruane's comments, particularly on the use of waivers. Last week, Senator Ruane and Senator Higgins spoke quite clearly when they discussed the human rights aspect of waivers. When we ask people to sign waivers for redress, we are basically saying they have no other recourse for justice within that and that is not the way we should be doing justice in Ireland. When it comes to amendment No. 8, we spoke a lot last week about lessons, learning lessons and the importance of learning from the past and bringing that forward. That is really what this amendment is about. It looks for a report on the adequacy and consistency of supports provided by the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board.”
“More survivors will come forward and new institutions will be considered. That was in an article in The Journal today, if the Minister wants to follow it up. That is legislation that is in the pipeline in the North. It is very upsetting for survivors down here to see this very different approach on the island. I support both of Senator Boyhan's amendments.”
“Getting feedback on how Sage is working and being a helping hand, which is a phrase used by Senator Boyhan, and facilitating and supporting survivors to use the service is very important. It is not a superfluous little extra; it is core to making sure the supports work for survivors. It is fundamental that we have a good-quality service that meets their needs. This would increase the responsiveness of the Bill to the needs of survivors. Senator Boyhan's second amendment, No. 4, is central to the question of inclusion and exclusion. It was reported in The Journal that the special advocate, Patricia Carey, stated that legislation would be introduced in the North to provide redress to people who spent one day in an institution while for us it is 180 days. The question of exclusion and inclusion is very important.”
“I speak in support of both of the amendments Senator Boyhan has tabled, especially about the report on the role of Sage Advocacy. I tabled an amendment that has been ruled out of order, which relates to this amendment. It called for the establishment of a survivor support and advisory office within the Department. I suspect it has been ruled out of order because of the cost implication, but it relates to the concept of having a report to assess what is happening with Sage. As has previously been said, when survivors are accessing support, the entire process is retraumatising and dehumanising. This is the direct feedback we are hearing from survivors. We are not making this up. They are dealing with a unique set of circumstances. The standard front-line public service workers do not have the skills for the interface.”
“I understand what the Minister said, namely that it is perhaps not appropriate legislatively to have a scheme that is open-ended, but we can amend it. Surely, at that time, it can be amended to close it down. That approach would respond more realistically to what we have already heard about the challenges survivors have in accessing schemes in the first place.”
“We have already said that, in the context of many of the bureaucratic systems, when these people are faced with forms or are trying to access services, it is difficult for them. We can presume, based on this information, that survivors might not apply. There might not be sufficient outreach by the Department to engage survivors. As a result, I would be hesitant to think that this would be an indication that there were no survivors who could access these schemes. It is that the schemes are not sufficiently accessible. I seriously urge against the idea that we take the fact that no one has applied as evidence that there is no one out there to apply. That is not the correct logic we should be using.”
“I thank the Cathaoirleach. I acknowledge Mary, Mary and Mary - I was going to call them the three Marys - in the Gallery. I hear what the Minister is saying about it just being a procedural aspect. We hear all the time from survivors that the schemes are inaccessible, difficult to understand, difficult to access and bureaucratic. I have a challenge with the idea that if no one has applied in three years, we can decide to wind it down. I refer to circumstances where we already have schemes that we know survivors cannot access because they are inherently inaccessible because they are bureaucratic and use systems and processes. As we spoke about last week - Senator Boyhan spoke about this at length - some people may have left school quite early. We are asking them to fill out forms.”
“I would like us to have a really meaningful, open and cross-Chamber debate on this issue. This should not be divisive. We should discuss how we can strategise to maintain our concept of freedom of speech while also addressing issues of hate speech online and protecting our students overseas. This is a scary time and if we see systematic aspects of overreach creeping in, where will we be in terms of our international relations?”
“Last week, I spoke about Coimisiún na Meán and the US Administration threatening civil servants working for that organisation if they were to introduce hate speech legislation that the EU has required us to transpose by 7 July this year. This moment calls for us to have a discussion about where we stand on our international partnerships, where our boundaries are, and what diplomatic channels we are using to push back on what I believe is complete overreach. We need a public response. The Taoiseach has said that he does not approve of the measures but we really need to think about what they will mean for our students and people travelling overseas. We cannot have a double standard when it comes to this notion of freedom of speech. It is not okay that our students are having their freedom of speech curtailed.”
“Many of our young people are activists that are championing issues that might be at odds with US foreign policy, particularly around Gaza, and this has a really chilling effect on what they feel they can express. Will they have to delete or comb through all of their social media for the last five years out of fear that they may be excluded from this programme? This programme, as we all know, is considered a rite of passage and is a symbol of our countries' close cultural ties, but the US seems increasingly selective about the values it promotes abroad. It champions freedom of speech when it suits but threatens diplomatic retaliation in other instances.”
“Senator Clonan took some of the words - not all of words - out of my mouth in his contribution regarding the overreach of the US Administration in the context of US visas. It is deeply concerning. I am sure most of us will know students who have gone on the J1 visa and have gone to travel, or indeed we may hope to travel ourselves, to the United States and now are fearful that they and we cannot. Irish students are facing a significant challenge in accessing these visas. The new requirements are invasive and undermine the rights to freedom of speech, privacy and freedom of expression. Students having to make public all of their social media profiles and any user handles they have had in the last five years is deeply concerning.”
“If the State believes certain cases require special handling, the DPP can justify that on a case-by-case basis, rather than continuing with the indiscriminate measures that weaken democracy and the rule of law. We risk the steady erosion of civil liberties under the guise of public safety if we continue to renew these measures year on year. I call for urgent reform so we do not have this debate next year and the year after.”
“The minority report suggested seeking the input of the UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, We strongly support that suggestion. In the absence of a clear, rights-compliant alternative to the current provisions and with significant public safety concerns still active, I will support this renewal. I do not want to see it renewed without additional provisions being put in place. That is why I implore the Government to have proper reforms put in place so that this time next year we will not have the same debate again. I want to make it clear that while this support is conditional, it cannot be used as a blank cheque for inaction. In the next 12 months, the Government must deliver a legislative framework in which non-jury trials are a rare exception and not the default.”
“Furthermore, the continued use of opinion evidence, which is no longer relied on in places like the North, raises serious questions about the equivalency provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. In terms of jury intimidation, the US and the UK have provisions similar to those outlined in the minority report, such as remote juries, anonymous juries, the non-disclosure of names and occupations, jury-only entrances and additional protection from the media. These are practical solutions to strengthen the challenge around jury intimidation. The Minister has yet to publish the outcome of the stakeholder consultation process that followed the publication of the Peart report, nor have we seen a clear human rights-proofing process for any replacement framework.”
“The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, in its June 2025 briefing, asked the critical question as to whether any permanent replacement would be granted in ordinary legislation or if it would require a referendum to amend the Constitution, as was the case with the Court of Appeal. These are not just technicalities; they go to the heart of legitimacy and constitutional propriety. I am also troubled by the majority report's recommendations that the DPP should continue to have exclusive power to choose trial venues in non-jury cases, with no practical means to challenge the decision. The minority report offered a more democratic safeguard in having the decision made or reviewed by a judge. That is a reform that should be taken seriously.”
“In 2023, Deputy Catherine Murphy spoke in the Dáil about how the use of such powers was drifting beyond their intended scope. She cited the referral of ordinary protest-related charges, including those connected to events in Kildare, to the Special Criminal Court, as an example of this kind of mission creep. These courts were established to deal with threats to the State, not to suppress civil disobedience or community activism. We cannot ignore the constitutional human rights concerns raised by the minority report of the review group, which described the proposal to make the Special Criminal Court permanent and to legislate for a replacement non-jury court as constitutionally inappropriate, given its origins in the emergency constitutional provisions.”
“Section 14 is particularly problematic, as it enables blanket referrals to the Special Criminal Court, a non-jury court that bypasses the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under the Constitution and the European Court of Human Rights. The UN Human Rights Committee has also said that the Special Criminal Court violates international human rights treaties. The Social Democrats believe in the right to a fair trial by jury, which is a core protection under the Constitution and international human rights law. My discomfort with this renewal reflects a broader concern, one also shared by the independent review group, civil society and legal experts, that extraordinary powers have become institutionalised in our justice system.”
“As legislators, we must be committed to upholding civil liberties and democratic oversight. How is it acceptable to normalise emergency powers that undermine basic legal protections, including the right to silence, the presumption of innocence and trial by jury? Under this Act, we have a process where people can be tried and charged but have vastly different experiences in the justice system if they are referred to the special court. There seems to be an assumption of guilt in the special court, with a conviction rate of about 95% compared to that of 66% in normal courts. Where is the equity and justice within these statistics?”
“I am a bit out of breath as I was running all over the place trying to get from committees. I am very concerned about the continued renewal of this Act without any reforms. I understand the historical debates we have had, as I looked through the records. The question of reform is something that is discussed annually. The provisions introduced in the wake of the Omagh bombing were always intended to be exceptional and temporary. I have, therefore, great difficulty with the fact that more than 25 years later, they remain on the Statute Book without any consideration being given to the practical reforms that could be introduced to increase the human rights approach of this Act. Continuous renewal should not be the case for something that was introduced in exceptional circumstances at a very different time.”
“I realise that such dialogue takes place on an ongoing basis with our closest neighbours on lots of different issues but in the context of how many people this affects and in recognition of the particular challenges survivors may face in their elder years, giving an explicit commitment to dialogue with foreign states in this regard might go some way to demonstrating the Government's commitment to ensure survivors do not lose out.”
“I appreciate that the wording of the amendment would tie the Minister to obligations that are outside her remit. Before Report Stage, will she look at finding a wording that would hold the Department to a commitment to ongoing dialogue with neighbouring states, in recognition of the large number of Irish citizens, as Senator Boyhan described so eloquently, who were forced to flee there because of their experience in the State? I am asking that we explore options for wording that would express the Department's commitment to ongoing dialogue.”
“It seeks to ensure that UK-based survivors of the Irish system who receive compensation from this State will not be impacted in terms of means testing for UK benefits schemes. I would like to see that provision applied to this Bill.”
“Without that protection, survivors living abroad, many of whom are elderly and on lower or fixed incomes, may face a lose-lose scenario of having to choose between accessing this support payment and losing their existing social benefits. It is not fair to put survivors in the position of having to make that choice. While I recognise it may not be within the Minister's jurisdiction per se to decide what any other state must do, it might be within her power to engage with her counterparts on this issue, specifically in the UK, with which we have the closest relationship and where there is wide recognition of the issues. The legislation known as Philomena's law is going through Westminster at the moment and has the backing of 100 MPs.”
“I move amendment No 15: In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(2) Where a survivor living abroad receives the once off health support payment, it shall not count as income for the purposes of means tested benefits or entitlements in the country where the survivor resides.”. This amendment relates to the many survivors who, as Senator Boyhan discussed, may be living in the UK, other parts of Europe, North America or the world who were victims and survivors of the institutional abuse in Ireland. It relates to them being eligible to receive these supports but makes sure that when they do receive the supports in the place or jurisdiction they are living, they are not impacted by means-testing or that the €3,000 grant is not affected by entitlements or other allowances from the state in which they are living.”
“In many cases, such labour enabled society and communities to function. I recognise the challenge involved in putting a cost on the Exchequer, but providing a contributory pension would go some way towards acknowledging the years of exploitation and unpaid labour engaged in by the survivors and their parents.”
“Providers know what it is and they do not ask questions. While the amendment might have been ruled out of order I would like to put on the record that we must examine the application of how survivors are using the existing card, namely, the enhanced medical card; how it is working in practise and their experience of using it. Perhaps changes, minor or otherwise, could be put in place without a cost to the Exchequer, be it for educational pieces so that when people working in the services encounter survivors with the card they do so in a trauma-informed way and they do not take any actions that might cause retraumatisation. My other amendment, which has also been ruled out of order, relates to access to a contributory pension. I included it as a way of recognising the years of unpaid labour in the homes, institutions and communities.”
“I want to read the text of the amendment into the record myself, which is Senator Boyhan's recommendation for amendments that are ruled out of order. I recognise that there is a potential cost on the Exchequer regarding the HAA card rather than the enhanced medical card that is provided to survivors. I would like to speak about the experience of many survivors when they access services using the enhanced medical card. We have heard reports that the card is not recognised. Service providers in the HSE ask people what the card is for and why people are entitled to it. Being asked such questions in a medical setting when one is seeking services could be incredibly retraumatising. It is deeply inappropriate. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong but the HAA is physically easily identifiable in terms of what it represents.”
“I move amendment No. 6: In page 7, line 18, after “2002,” to insert “such a service to be provided by professionals with expertise in institutional abuse and forced family separation,”. This amendment focuses on the quality of professional support that survivors receive, recognising their specific needs and the professional experience counselling providers and professionals should have in instances of institutional abuse and forced-family separation. In the past, we have heard reports of people feeling the standard of support they received was retraumatising in some cases. If we are to truly respect and recognise the trauma survivors have experienced, we need to provide them with the dignity of a service that has a specialist skill set to meet those needs. Survivors have endured deep and lasting hurt and trauma.”
“However, the fact we have not had enough time to discuss and scrutinise this Bill is very concerning because we do see gaps in it.”
“Under the new regulations, these groups, students, and other people who have to move regularly due to the nature of their work, have no protections from market rents when they are moving, because generally they are moving within an academic year or a certain period of time, depending on their contracts. When the tenancy expires, under these new regulations the landlord can hike the rent for that property to the market rent at any given time. It does not matter what sort of private accommodation it is. That will put rents up. That will be the outcome of this, and that is what is deeply concerning to us. I appreciate this has been brought in quickly in response to the need for more direct measures on housing, which we have all been calling for.”
“I want to address the issue of students and public sector workers like doctors and nurses who have to move frequently as part of their jobs. Every time they now move, they will be subjected to new market rents. We heard on Tuesday at the Raise the Roof demonstration outside Leinster House, which I am sure the Minister heard, that some nurses are already paying something like 70% of their monthly income on rent. That figure of 70% of their monthly income on rent is absolutely extortionate. I know the Minister would not agree with that and would not want to see that.”
“It would be great to have an indicator of when we might expect rents to come down following the passage of the Bill which, in theory, has that aim at its core. The Government is selling the Bill as a bold step forward for renters, but I feel it is more of a sleight of hand. It speaks the language of fairness, but it bends towards investor interest rather than renter protections. The Bill makes a lot of noise, but when one reads the fine print one finds it offers legal clarity for landlords and financial uncertainty to renters. It provides predictability for REITs and hedge funds, while those struggling to pay €2,000, €3,000 or €4,000 a month in rent are just one notice away from eviction. We need public housing affordability benchmarks, real eviction bans, and an end to the commodification of homes.”
“We have heard phrases like "confusion", "uncertainty", "doubt", "ambiguity", "chaos" and "mess" used in the past week to describe the new rental regulations. When these words are used to describe new regulations, we know the Government is not doing its job. The Government has failed renters for too many years. While we in the Social Democrats support the expansion of rent pressure zones in principle, the corresponding measures in the Bill will contribute heavily to rent inflation and supporting investor funds to make higher profits. When questioned about when we will start to see rents coming down, I believe the Minister said in a press conference last week that he does not know. Surely the reason for the Bill is to bring rents down.”
“The Department officials also emphasised that plausible information is the new tool under the due diligence procedure. However, plausible information is not actually a legal concept under EU law. It places an undue burden on NGOs and civil society stakeholders, which we directly fund through the Department’s work in Irish Aid and through human rights work that we fund. It is a particular concern for me that we are hearing something from the Department of enterprise that I do not think is in line with our human rights obligations around the due diligence duty we have.”
“I am grateful to the Minister of State for his commitment to those four areas and putting it on the record. I recognise what he says about simplification not being a race to the bottom and it is not about deregulation. We met Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment officials yesterday at the enterprise committee and had a good engagement with them there. I was concerned with their emphasis on the due diligence approach not being watered down. I disagree with that entirely in terms of the omnibus proposals. I feel that the risk-based approach in the CSDDD provided more simplification for the supply chain. The new proposal is an omnibus, focusing only on tier 1, which means that human rights and environmental abuses will not be identified. That is concerning.”
“Will Ireland be pushing back against the different roll-backs of the provisions that are fundamental for the human rights and environmental protections?”
“It would be a profound setback not just for corporate accountability but for the EU's credibility when it comes to upholding human rights and environmental rights. Will Ireland be publicly defending the core provisions of the CSDDD, acknowledging the limitations the Minister of State may have when it comes to the specifics of the negotiations? What is Ireland's position on the four key areas under threat, namely, the due diligence duty, the EU-wide civil liability regime, the implementation of climate transition plans and the stakeholder engagement component? Will Ireland be taking a clear and vocal stance at the upcoming meetings at Council level in Brussels? I believe the Minister of State may have been at a meeting on this yesterday.”
“Despite the Government's stated position that it supports the simplification agenda only insofar as it does not undermine human rights and environmental protections, Ireland has remained worryingly silent during ongoing Council negotiations on the omnibus proposal I acknowledge that some of those negotiations are probably confidential. I am sure that will be one of the Minister of State's responses. We have failed to join like-minded member states in actively defending the core provisions in the directive, provisions that now pose a real risk of weakening or removing some of those protections altogether. The silence does matter. The omnibus proposals do not represent minor adjustments. They are an unravelling of these hard-won protections.”
“It is in direct contradiction of the EU Commission's better regulations principles, which are supposed to guarantee transparency, evidence-based policymaking and public input. I acknowledge the statement made by the former Minster of State with responsibility for this directive, the Minister, Deputy Calleary, shortly before it officially entered into force. He affirmed that Ireland had consistently supported the objectives of the CSDDD and called for ambition in the protections it would provide. His remarks clearly reflect a commitment by the Government to ensuring this legislation would be both meaningful and enforceable, yet today the commitment is lacking.”
“Far from being a technical simplification, the proposed changes would undermine the very core of the corporate sustainability due diligence directive. They do so by diluting the due diligence duty and weakening the legal obligations on companies to prevent and address human rights and environmental abuses; removing the EU-wide civil liability regime, thereby stripping victims of a clear and enforceable route to justice; eliminating the requirement for companies to implement climate transition plans; and limiting stakeholder engagement, silencing effective communities and workers. This process has been completely rushed without proper consultation or impact assessments.”
“It is the product of decades of advocacy and built on key voluntary frameworks including the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. After two years of intense negotiations, the directive was finally passed and entered into force in July 2024 with member states including Ireland being required to transpose it into national law by July 2026. Just months after this important victory, however, the European Commission has tabled its Omnibus 1 proposal under the banner of cutting red tape. This is a dangerous misrepresentation. The omnibus proposal actually goes much further, threatening to dismantle the vital protections and safeguards for basic rights of workers and vulnerable communities, both in Ireland and around the world.”
“It is a direct response to very preventable human tragedies like the collapse of the Rana Plaza on 24 April 2013, when over 1,130 garment workers were crushed to death in Dhaka in Bangladesh while sewing clothes for European brands like Zara, Benetton and Penneys. Completely structurally unsound and built without proper permits, the building fell on itself the day after visible cracks were ignored by factory owners. Those lives were lost because profit was prioritised over safety and because there were no legal obligations on companies to prevent or respond to such corporate abuses in their supply chains. The CSDDD legislation was designed precisely to prevent this kind of harm, by making due diligence mandatory, enforceable and accountable across the EU.”
“I welcome the Minister of State. I think this is the second time he has come in for a Commencement matter for me and I really appreciate his continued engagement on international development. I have asked him to come to the Chamber today to address the deeply concerning developments regarding the EU corporate sustainability due diligence directive, which I will refer to as CSDDD. It is a law that Ireland has rightly supported, and represents a hard-fought victory for corporate accountability, human rights and climate justice. The directive is not abstract or bureaucratic legislation.”
“I will finish with a statement from the CEO of Inclusion Ireland: Whilst improvements in safeguarding have been noted in recent years it remains a concern that many disabled people still live in circumstances where abuse is more likely to occur. Until we change the nature of how we support people to be truly focused on their human rights, choices and freedoms, we run the risk of more stories like Grace’s. This statement should drive our actions now. None of us wants to be speaking about future cases like this so we need to act together with urgency and legislate. Going back to Senator Clonan's point, we can expedite adult safeguarding legislation. That is in our power as legislators and I would welcome that.”
“You are welcome. We need comprehensive safeguarding legislation and we need to allow State bodies to conduct unannounced inspections, obtain court orders to enter and remove individuals where necessary, receive and act on reports of abuse and advocate for the rights of adults at risk, among a range of measures. We need mandatory reporting, much like we have with the child safeguarding legislation. The State is running at almost €600 million in terms of these tribunals. What we get for our €600 million is that lessons have been learned. If we learned lessons, we would not need these commissions. The Farrelly commission has not really given us answers. Neither it nor the Grace report has given us a sense of accountability or justice.”
“As we do not have cohesive legislation, no Department has explicit, direct oversight or responsibility. The Law Reform Commission rightly recommended the establishment of an independent safeguarding authority supported by statutory powers, standards and interagency responsibilities. It is time for this Chamber to support the urgent drafting and passage of adult safeguarding legislation, as recommended by the legal profession and by front-line advocates and survivors. Without such a framework, we will continue to rely on fragmented, discretionary responses and we will continue to fail people like Grace. I welcome Senator Clonan's contribution. He seems ready to go with the safeguarding legislation. I will be ready to stand beside and support him on that.”
“Even the Taoiseach has questioned the effectiveness of the public inquiries. Where is the accountability in this case? If we are to honour Grace and the other survivors of abuse, many of whom, as Senator Clonan pointed out, are not getting the justice they deserve, and if we are to prevent such systemic failures in the future, we must confront the glaring legislative gap which is the fact that Ireland still has no comprehensive adult safeguarding legislation, despite the many calls from civil society groups like Inclusion Ireland, Sage Advocacy and Care Champions. The challenge is that safeguarding falls across multiple Departments: the Department of Health, the Department of Children, Disability and Equality; the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration; and the Department of Social Protection.”
“My colleague, Deputy Quaide, correctly called the report a betrayal of the truth. The Social Democrats ask that the commission chair and the Minister, Deputy Foley, be brought before the Committee on Disability Matters. I understand the committee's independence, but the decision to exclude testimony from Grace's team is appalling and undermines public trust in State lead safeguarding. Questions need to be answered about what happens now and into the future, and how Grace's voice and the voice of her legal team be incorporated into further considerations. What is the purpose of a commission of investigation if the voices of survivors and their advocates are missing? What does it say about the State when the mechanisms for justice failed to meet the needs of those they were meant to support?”
“Critically, the commission did not include the testimony of Grace's legal team, who have long been key voices in seeking justice on her behalf. The decision not to admit those responsible for advocating and being Grace's voice is a complete failure. I want to support the remarks of Senator Byrne on the need to ascertain the facts. That is why I believe that the inclusion of Grace's legal team in the commission's findings would have been critical. Again, the report is lengthy. I have spoken about this in the Chamber on previous occasions. I recognise the comments of the Minister on having sought an executive summary. The length of the report makes it inaccessible to many of the people seeking clarity. I do not think that is best practice, in particular when we are talking about vulnerable communities.”
“I will share time if the other Senator makes it in time. I thank the Minister. Grace was failed over and over again by the State. The people who were supposed to protect Grace failed her. The whistleblowers who came forward time and again were also failed. While we hope that Grace is now living a better life, the failure of the State has not ended with her experience in foster care. The failure of the State continued with the publication of the Farrelly commission's final report, a document that has completely failed to answer any questions and has compounded the harm to Grace and her family. How was this commission, which cost over €13 million and took eight years, concluded with no evidence that Grace was abused despite the prior inquiries, testimony and personal knowledge of those closest to her?”