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 26 of 28.
“I certainly echo a lot of what Senator Cosgrove has said. Youth diversion from crime is fundamentally about prevention and addressing the root causes. I spoke earlier in the Chamber about root causes that can lead young people into criminality. We have to look at the root causes of any issue to actually solve it. Often these root causes are poverty, marginalisation, addiction, social exclusion, intergenerational trauma and systematic neglect of communities. When there is a failure to intervene early and support families living with and dealing with these root causes it creates a vacuum for criminal actors to fill by offering young people a false sense of inclusion and value and ultimately exploiting them. Addressing this requires us to increase young people's sense of belonging and value within society.”
“It is not just due to a lack of gardaí on the street. I am supportive of the essence of the Bill. I hope we can work together and that we can add a few things to strengthen it on Committee Stage.”
“They are at higher risk of exploitation, misogyny and racist abuse. We could be mindful of that and include relevant measures in the Bill to address the intersecting identities people have that put them at greater risk. They have less agency to speak for themselves and there is potentially even a language barrier. While it is good to have an increased Garda presence, I do not believe the lack of guards is the root cause of the problem. The root cause of crime is poverty and social exclusion. It is very good that we are having this debate today. In an hour or two we will also have a discussion on youth diversion. These things are inherently linked. The increase in crime comes from people being excluded from society, and suffering as a result. Violent theft is always a bad thing but what is the root cause driving it?”
“We are all in agreement that no one should be in a dangerous position when they go to work. Taking a holistic approach includes providing a living wage and respecting people both inside and outside the workplace. I echo what was said in that regard. The effect of abuse does not stop immediately after it happens. It can have long-term physical and psychological effects. We should consider the inclusion in the Bill of mandating support for affected workers. Senator Cosgrove mentioned extending sick leave. What else can we do? We could include legal assistance where necessary, have paid leave for recovery and provide access to counselling. Senator Clonan mentioned that the hospitality and retail sectors are both made up of young, low-paid workers, often from migrant backgrounds.”
“I am very happy that this Bill has come forward. I am delighted Fianna Fáil introduced it. I support the intention and essence of the Bill. As Senator Nelson Murray said, it would be fantastic to see it extended to hospitality workers. There are lots of data available to us. For example, a study from Galway indicated that 76% of hospitality workers experienced verbal abuse, 64% experienced psychological abuse and 15% experienced physical abuse. It would make a difference to them to be included. Senator Nelson Murray also spoke about the leisure sector. The measures must have a breadth to them to ensure the Bill is responsive. As Senator Ryan mentioned, it is important to be honest with people and to take a holistic approach. It is necessary to protect workers in the retail space.”
“This is why I am really disappointed that the Government has chosen not to pursue the living wage as early as it previously committed to. When workers are paid fairly, they have more disposable income, which stimulates our local economies and reduces reliance on social welfare transfers, so it is a policy that benefits not just individuals but society. Upholding the promise of a living wage is not just a financial decision. It is a moral imperative. It says that we are committed to respecting workers and recognise the financial pressures ordinary families live under so I urge the Government to reconsider its position on this and I would welcome a debate on it in this Chamber.”
“Who is this Government prioritising? Why is it not prioritising the workers? These are not just statistics; they represent real people. They represent teachers, healthcare workers, retail and hospitality staff and countless others who are struggling to meet the bills and make ends meet. Sometimes they are working full time or have second or third jobs. I am sure anyone canvassing during the general election met people like these on the doors who are really struggling to keep their heads above water. The imbalance between those who have and those who do not have in this country is getting wider and more pronounced. I believed that the introduction of a living wage was going to be a step towards rectifying this imbalance. It was a recognition that work should provide not just a sense of purpose but the means to live with dignity.”
“This week we will celebrate May Day and, as we all know, 1 May is International Workers' Day. In this context, the recent decision by the Minister, Deputy Chambers, and the Government to row back on the commitment to a living wage for all workers is particularly disappointing. This is not just a policy shift but a real message to workers that they do not matter to this Government. A recent poll conducted by the Business Post revealed that 63% of people in Ireland reported having little to no disposable income due to the escalating cost-of-living crisis. We all know that energy bills, food costs and travel costs are going up. The cost of everything is increasing almost weekly, it seems. The cost of living is having an impact on people's lives and many people simply cannot keep up. Why are workers having to do without?”
“The report lacks an executive summary, making it completely inaccessible to the very people most affected by its findings. It fails to name people responsible and, frankly, fails to deliver accountability. The Ombudsman for Children has said that the ship has sailed for justice but it cannot and must not. Grace, your voice may never be heard but your story must be. That is why I am calling for a full public inquiry, one that delivers truth, justice and lasting change. Ireland does not have sufficient safeguarding legislation for vulnerable adults, in complete contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We need mandatory reporting for abuse in all care settings. We urgently need to address the appalling safeguarding abuses we have seen within the Irish care system.”
“Today I am here as a public representative but I am also here as a human being. It is appalling what was allowed to happen to Grace. The State failed her, her family and the 47 other children placed in that foster home. It also failed the whistleblowers who had the courage to speak up when no one else would. The Farrelly commission was launched eight years ago, after Grace was removed. It delivered a 2,000-page report this month after a €20 million investigation. It confirms neglect and a fundamental failure in care, but it stops short of acknowledging the emotional or sexual abuse, despite a €6.3 million settlement by the HSE and a public apology in court. This contradiction within the commission's report cannot be ignored.”
“Many of us were deeply disappointed by the findings of the Farrelly commission on the Grace case. Grace is a 40-year-old woman living in the south east. A lot has been said about her in the media over the last few weeks. I take the opportunity today to speak directly to Grace, who is often missing from this discussion, despite the fact that she is central to this issue. Grace, you were failed over and over again by the State. You deserved love, protection and dignity but instead, those who were supposed to protect you turned you away. For more than two decades, serious concerns were raised about your safety but those warnings were systematically ignored. You were left in harm's way and your family was left to fight alone for justice that should have come swiftly.”
“With my very limited time, I also wish to highlight the crisis we see in primary healthcare facilities with the USAID cuts and the need for Ireland and the EU to plug those gaps, particularly as regards infectious diseases, including HIV, which is spreading drastically and will cause a global health crisis in Europe, including Ireland.”
“The UN system ensures sufficient checks and balances are in place to monitor missions and, critically, to ensure our missions are human rights-compliant and to uphold international law. Without the UN safeguards in place, we risk engaging in missions that are not compliant with international law. No one in this room or in this country wants to see that. The triple lock and the UN mandate are the foundations of our proactive peacebuilding role in the world. In a world dominated by global powers and rivalries with the US, the independence provided to us by the triple lock allows us to act as an honest broker. That means we are trusted by countries in the global north and in the global south.”
“Through the 2006 defence Act, the triple lock allows for a deadlock in the Security Council to be addressed which means the General Assembly endorsement of Irish military deployment is sufficient to satisfy the triple lock. I want to be clear; I am not saying the UN is a perfect system. It needs reform. However, abandoning that system and walking away from it, which the Government will do by removing the triple lock, will further contribute to the splitting of member states into regional blocs. That will create a significantly more dangerous international landscape across the world, particularly in light of the tariffs we are seeing. The UN mandate and the process of getting that mandate serve a key role in ensuring appropriate international support has been garnered for peacekeeping missions.”
“Our own 2006 defence Act recognises this mechanism, meaning the triple lock can be satisfied by a General Assembly resolution. If the Government believes the Security Council veto is a problem, why does it not seek to end the veto? The permanent representative from New Zealand said in 2023 that "the casting of a veto is not a display of power, but rather an act of weakness which shows the caster of the veto has failed to convince others of their position". In 2022, the UN strengthened this principle with Resolution 76/262 requiring a General Assembly debate whenever a Security Council veto is used. Since then, this process has been activated twice. We in the international community are not powerless in the face of veto nor should we abandon our long-standing principles based on hypothetical concerns.”
“It is in this context that I want to talk about the need at national and EU levels to keep our commitment to UN multilateralism. That is why I and my colleagues in the Social Democrats are steadfast in our belief and arguments around maintaining the triple lock. Yet, we continue to hear claims, including from the Minister of State, that the triple lock obstructs peacekeeping missions. Let us be honest - the facts say otherwise. Between 1993 and 2024 Russia has never used its veto to block a mission. Even if a Security Council deadlock were to occur, the Minister of State knows the UN General Assembly has the power to act. The Uniting for Peace resolution, which was adopted in 1950, allows the UN General Assembly to override a Security Council veto, as it did in the 1956 Suez crisis.”
“I thank the Minister of State for joining us today. As the Tánaiste said, we meet at a time of great global instability, not least because of the tariffs announced yesterday, because of ongoing conflicts and, as Senator Andrews highlighted, because of the genocide we are seeing unfold before our eyes. It is within this context that I reaffirm the importance of Ireland's commitment to peacekeeping and, within that, the integrity of the triple lock and working within the UN system. As the US, one of the largest global powers, seeks to undermine international co-operation, we must stand firm. We must invest at national and EU level in people and in the services which address poverty and the economic instability we face, rather than in huge defence spending which will take away spending from addressing the needs of working people.”
“If the Irish State continues the permit the transportation of weapons, I question whether we are standing on the right side of history. I am very comfortable saying that today because I want to stand on the right side of history. That is why I am very proud to be taking a stand on this issue and supporting the Civil Engagement Group. What will we say to the next generation when they ask what we did when we saw people being obliterated? That is why this issue is so critical. Only 1% of exemption requests are refused. The Minister has the power to prevent the exemptions. The Government needs to be in line with public opinion on this. The public opinion is clear. The Minister has the power to refuse exemptions, so why are we continuing to potentially allow weapons of pure terror to pass through Ireland?”
“Enabling aircraft containing military or dual-use items to fly over or stop over in Ireland cannot be described as doing everything within our power to oppose Israel’s genocidal actions. Israel has indeed been acting with total impunity. What have we really done? What have we meaningfully done? The State continues to allow munitions to be transported through Ireland. While I know today’s debate is not about the issue of the occupied territories, the State continues to completely prevaricate on the passing of the occupied territories Bill. What we are asking for in that Bill and the arms embargo Bill is the bare minimum. The ICC chief prosecutor has sought arrest warrants for Netanyahu and the Israeli Minister of Defence for international crimes of extermination, starvation and persecution.”
“This means the Irish Government may have approved exemptions of aircraft carrying munitions of war that have been used in Gaza and that have been used to kill innocent people and bring terror and horror to an entire population. Can the Government prove this is not the case? Is there evidence that can be shown? If there is none, this State is literally at risk of enabling and fuelling war and killing. Not only is the State facilitating the passage of weapons used in the killing and terrorising of civilians – we all know that and can accept it in this room – but it is also in contravention of the ICJ’s advisory opinion from last year that stated Israel is violating international law and that all UN member states have an obligation to do everything in their power to oppose Israel’s unlawful actions.”
“I very much support the Bill the Civil Engagement Group has introduced. It puts Ireland in line with its international obligations. We would just be meeting standards by passing it. The permitting of the passage of weapons and ammunition through Ireland is quite disturbing and represents a potential facilitation of the genocidal actions of the Israeli state. Let there be no doubt about that. Senator Higgins has spoken about the mass graves of the healthcare staff. We saw images of them with their gloves on in the graves. We have seen countless images of babies swaddled in cloth being carried by loved ones after they had been killed. As we know, an aircraft carrying munitions of war over Irish airspace must apply for an exemption from the Minister for Transport.”
“Progress is at a standstill and it is not a new issue. We have seen this coming. Every year that passes means lost opportunities for housing and rural community development, which is important. In Ireland, rural communities feel a greater sense of exclusion. This is compounding and adding to that feeling. We cannot allow bureaucratic delays and underfunding to contribute further to that. This has gone on long enough. I call for immediate action. I suspect the Minister's response is that Uisce Éireann is not within his remit, but at this stage that answer is not good enough. We need a holistic approach. We need the Department to take action on quasi-governmental organisations like Uisce Éireann.”
“It is having a serious impact on rural Ireland. Significant delays in updating water infrastructure have led to huge roadblocks for communities. Vital housing projects cannot move forward. The very small village of Bennettsbridge in Kilkenny has been told it will not have any wastewater treatment until after 2029, and until that is done no other village in Kilkenny will have wastewater treatment updates. Huge numbers of people on the social housing list have nowhere to go. This includes Paulstown, Piltown and Inistioge. They have been told the infrastructure will not be in place until 2029 at the earliest. This issue is not unique to Kilkenny. Rural communities across Ireland are facing endless delays. Developers are ready to build. Families are desperate for homes. Yet, we have a complete failure to deliver wastewater connections.”
“I thank the Minister. The housing challenges are widespread. We have heard that we are living in a housing emergency. Over 15,000 people are homeless, including over 4,600 children. We have a massive challenge around short-term lets. Airbnbs are blocking people from accommodation. We had the disastrous decision to remove the tenant in situ scheme. As the issue is so broad and given that I have so little time to speak, I will focus on an issue Senator Murphy spoke about, namely, Uisce Éireann and wastewater supply and infrastructure, which is hindering new housing developments nationally, and the impact that has on rural communities specifically. Uisce Éireann is not explicitly under the remit of the Minister's Department, but at some stage the Department has to take responsibility for the delays in developments we are seeing.”
“It is not okay that women are having to make decisions about whether to have children because they are worried about the costs of childcare. It is very scary for many young women in Ireland that their family planning decisions are being made because of this crisis.”
“The Irish Times reported this week that 24.5% of staff are leaving the sector every year. Establishing a public childcare sector would provide consistency to families and workers. It would address the huge waiting lists, enable price caps, which the Minister discussed, and provide better conditions for childcare workers. It is the only way to achieve an equitable system where no family or worker is left behind. As Senator Ní Chuilinn pointed out, this is really a gender equality issue. Many women are prevented from returning to work, or if they do, they will have been five or six years out of work and are coming back on lower wages. If we look at this through the lens of gender equality, that will be a good framework for how we go about changing it.”
“We need a national childcare agency to ensure quality care for all children, affordability for parents and, most important, as has been discussed at length today, proper pay and conditions for childcare workers. We really cannot have a functioning childcare system if we are not reflecting the value of the work that is being done. I have met childcare workers, as have all of us here today, who work very hard caring for our children but whose pay and conditions do not reflect what they are doing. We heard from Senator Nelson Murray about some people leaving the sector to work in Aldi or Lidl, where they are paid more per hour. These people are very well qualified. They have gone through many levels of qualification. It is such a critical role, and the fact the staff turnover is so high is a direct consequence of the pay and conditions.”
“I thank the Minister. After all the interventions we have heard here this afternoon, we can say the situation for childcare and for families is really bleak. I have spoken to women who had to put their child's name on the waiting list when they were four months pregnant. I have spoken to a plethora of women my own age who are delaying having their first child or subsequent children because they are so worried about the costs. The sky-rocketing costs reflect the fact the system is failing families. The Social Democrats have been advocating for a comprehensive policy and public model of early childhood education and care to alleviate the strain on the crumbling childcare system.”
“I understood what the Minister of State was saying but to sit in a room with your abuser, not being cross-examined by them but sitting an a room with them and being obligated to be cross-examined by the ombudsman, could be a very re-traumatising incident, especially in cases with an active protection order, of which there might be very few. We might not be seeing many on an annual or five-year basis but it is really about having that protection built in to how the process works. If someone has a protection order against another person and they are going into this procedure, it would be an incredibly re-traumatising experience. That is why I suggested this.”
“What this amendment is not in line with is the Istanbul Convention on Violence Against Women and Girls and our obligation as a State to protect survivors of violence. That is my one comment on that. I do not think it is in the spirit of the case that there is not fairness when it comes to survivors being forced to sit in a room with their abuser. It is something to be cognisant of.”
“The Minister of State will be sick of me. There is also a component with this whereby the new cross-examination powers lack the safeguards for vulnerable witnesses. Re-traumatisation is a really common thing for survivors of domestic violence during financial proceedings. Perhaps we could consider the option of having examinations conducted through written submissions unless the complainant requests otherwise. The Minister of State might review this. This procedural protection would remove a significant barrier to justice without compromising the investigative powers of the ombudsman. That is something that might be considered.”
“I agree with what Senator Murphy has said about fear, coercive control and people being trapped in these cycles, and the importance of us having institutions that recognise, spot, detect and respond to this. We have options. We have protection orders, which exist in the Domestic Violence Act. Is there something that can be done in terms of using these protection order mechanisms and using exemptions already in money laundering legislation to address the issue of joint consent? The onus is on us. I know the Minister of State agrees because I was following the previous discussion. We need to find the systems and mechanisms we have in existing legislation to see how we can make them work in this new legislation. The onus is on us to support survivors in every way we can.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the response. Really what I am talking about here is specifically how it relates to detection when we talk about an holistic response to domestic violence. I know it might fall traditionally for the Garda to respond to instances of domestic violence, but there is an onus on all different types of State-funded institutions to play a part in detection of that, whether that is vulnerable adults in terms of elder abuse or whether that is victims of domestic violence. There is a role to be played in respect of that training component, and that is what I was referring to specifically as opposed to the code of conduct.”
“I want to speak on an element around domestic violence relating to the allocation for specialist training. I would like to see a percentage of expenses charged under subsection 2(a) to be ring-fenced for specialist training on financial abuse detection. TASC's financial abuse programme has successfully trained in excess of 500 professionals, but without dedicated resources, we risk the FSPO missing critical warning signs vis-à-vis domestic violence.”
“I would like us to consider adding that financial abuse means behaviour constituting coercive control under the Domestic Violence Act, including unauthorised use of joint accounts or coercive financial agreements. This addition would create a statutory basis for recognising abuse patterns in FSPO decisions.”
“What this means is that, in its current form, the Bill very much excludes the needs of vulnerable survivors of domestic violence. We have data from women's rights organisations that clearly highlight that financial abuse is often used as a weapon and it traps victims into cycles of control and fear. In its current form, the Bill obliges survivors to obtain their abuser's consent to challenge fraudulent debts or coercive financial arrangements. I know everyone in this Chamber will agree that is morally wrong. The legal barrier within the Bill leaves survivors to choose between financial ruin or continued abuse. While I welcome the expansion of definitions, I note the omission of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.”
“I am very supportive of this Bill, by and large, but I wish to raise one major issue. It pertains to forcing survivors of domestic violence to obtain the consent of their abusers. I know the Minister of State is aware of the point, as I followed the debate in the Dáil. The current process forces survivors of domestic violence to obtain their abusers' consent to file complaints about jointly held financial products. The data we have on domestic violence show specifically that in 2024 there were 65,000 incidences of domestic violence reported to the Garda. Women's Aid states that in 2023, 78% of coercive control cases involved financial abuse. Safe Ireland's finding was that survivors face an average lifetime cost from abuse of €100,000.”
“This is why it is important that we address it. This has been a lifeline route for those commuting from Castlecomer to Dublin, Waterford, Carlow, Athy and other destinations. The absence of a public transport option means those without access to cars do not have an alternative. It is a major failing in our public transport policy that this has happened. Senator O'Loughlin spoke about today being a good day for Kildare. I wish I could speak about it being a good day for public transport for Kilkenny. This is why I would like a debate on equity in rural transport.”
“With no viable public transport alternative in place, this is going to leave residents without reliable public transport and without access to work, education, and the airport. I am asking that the National Transport Authority and the Government intervene immediately. Most of us in this room will agree that public transport should be a public good. We need to take the opportunity to put alternatives in place in these instances where a provider suddenly stops a service. It is a devastating blow for people from the area. Public transport should be a right. It should not be a privilege. Without these services, workers, students and families are left stranded. It is deepening the rural-urban divide we see in many other instances. It is compounding the sense of rural exclusion that so many rural communities feel.”
“I support Senator Ruane's intervention. I would also like the Minister to furnish us with a report on the cost-benefit analysis of using this type of appalling, heavy-handed policing tactics versus using a community mediator in instances like this. This type of policing is morally wrong but I also suspect it is more expensive for the State. The issue I want to speak on today is to do with rural Kilkenny, which is facing a transport crisis. A key private bus operator for the area, JJ Kavanagh and Sons, is reducing its 717 service from Clonmel to Dublin Airport. It is making route adjustments and cutting out some notable areas, including Castlecomer. This is going to impact on communities, students and travellers, with only a week's notice and no public consultation. It is really a huge blow to the area.”
“I move amendment No. 2: To insert the following after “6th March, 2025”: “: provided that this Order shall not reduce the financial contribution payable to those hosting temporary protection beneficiaries”.”
“We need to be talking in a timely manner so that we can, as the Minister said, provide certainty to host families and Ukrainians on what will happen this time next year. It is about proper planning and forward thinking.”
“The major risk in not renewing the ARP in its current form is that it will increase uncertainty for hosts and for the Ukrainian guests, and inflict further challenges on people who have already faced huge challenges and an horrific war. Of course, it will also going to deepen the homelessness crisis, as Senator McCarthy spoke to really well. The Social Democrats want to have an early discussion on this and what happens to this scheme post-March 2026 in a timely manner. The Minister stated the payment would reduce to €600 per month from July. We need to maintain the current payment until March 2026, but it should be around July that we have a clear policy guideline on what will happen post 2026.”
“According to the Irish Red Cross, 70% of hosts are somewhat motivated or incentivised by the value and would not be able to continue hosting without the payment. Hence, it is important that we keep the amount the same. I wish to highlight, as the Minister did, that this payment is largely not going to landlords. This is going to people that are outside of the landlord sector, with a spare room, a granny flat or something in the back garden that they would not normally rent out. They are doing it as an act of solidarity. That is why it is important that we continue to recognise the lengths that they are going to. It is not always easy to have strangers in your home. They are not strangers anymore after three years but the reduction is reducing how the State sees the work these families are doing through hosting.”
“I support the extension of the scheme but I will propose an amendment later to retain the accommodation recognition payment at €800 per month for the year. Senator Ahearn pointed out that it had been increased from €400 to €800 per month but that was because it was not sufficient in the first place and, therefore, maintaining it at €800 per month for the entire year is only fair. As has been mentioned, the payment serves as a token of appreciation or generosity to these hosts and acknowledges the expenses they incur while hosting people. Lots of people are doing it out of solidarity. They are losing money on this and reducing the payment is quite punitive. It is within that framework that the scheme should be extended and the ARP remain at €800 per month.”
“Senator Ahearn also mentioned how much we are saving the State by using this scheme. I support that point. In recent weeks, a number of Ukrainians have been forced to leave their accommodation, whether it was hotels or student accommodation. That is slightly separate from this discussion but I want to highlight the retraumatising effect that can have on people, particularly children, when they have settled into their schools and communities and then have to move long distances away and start again. I want to link those two issues. Both those families, and those living with hosts, have started to put down roots, have made friends and have been working in their local areas and so it is really important that this scheme be extended to ensure that can continue.”
“I thank the Minister for coming to discuss this today. The point she discussed around certainty, which Senators O'Loughlin and Ahearn also raised, is important. The fact we are dealing with this motion four days before the end of the month suggests that there has not been certainty. I support the theory of the scheme but I wish it had been arranged earlier so that families were not living in a state of flux and not worrying about where they were going to live. This extension should not have been arranged at the last possible minute. We have heard at length the positive benefits of this scheme for both the Ukrainians living with host families and the hosts themselves. According to the Irish Red Cross, 91% of hosts reported good experiences. We all attended a good briefing a few weeks ago. A total of 81% of them wanted to extend the pledge.”
“The convergence of academic, governmental and industrial interests necessitates greater transparency in policy discussions affecting national neutrality. While private engagements can facilitate informed policymaking, it is the public's right to be informed about those influences and how they are shaping defence and foreign policy interests. I would welcome a debate on the issue of transparency and lobbying in public commentary. I do not believe we can build public trust in public discourse without this transparency.”
“How can we trust what commentators are contributing to the public debate if we do not know what their links are to various companies and lobbying groups? We live in a time of mistrust in the public and political spheres with how we see misinformation and disinformation in the online space. People do not know what is and is not true. That is why this element of transparency and openness are so important for us to maintain. This is not just an issue for individuals but for media organisations more generally. If commentators have loyalties and links, whether to lobbying groups, industries or political parties, those should be declared. The public should not be in the dark about that. These revelations in The Ditch have sparked a debate about transparency and governmental interactions with the arms manufacturers.”
“It is not one that I favour, but there is room for debate. What is concerning is that, when the public hear this advocacy, they may not be aware that the viewpoint coming from this individual is not entirely academic. Given the person's connections to a lobbying group that represents defence companies, the end of neutrality or any significant increase in defence spending entails a conflict of interest and I believe that needs to be declared. Transparency in the public sphere is essential for our democracy, democratic principles and ensuring that citizens are well informed about the influences shaping national politics and discourse. I firmly believe that the failure to disclose these links publicly significantly undermines, within public discourse, the idea of transparency and open discourse.”