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 28 of 28.
“We need to strengthen the initiatives we have in rural areas to ensure that rural communities feel they are being supported. There is a wider issue around rural exclusion and how rural communities feel and are treated in comparison with those in towns and cities. An effective response to crime that ensures a swift, fair and community-focused response is essential. We have already discussed that the Garda must be well-resourced, visible and engaged with the communities it serves. This means increased community policing, an increased presence and better training in things such as de-escalation and mental health crisis intervention. We should be stressing our response to crime through increased Garda patrols in areas that are known to have higher levels of crime.”
“I thank the Minister of State for coming to speak to us today about this issue, which has obviously been in the public psyche. As all the other speakers have already said, people across cities, towns and rural areas are feeling a greater sense of threat. I live on the Carlow-Kilkenny border and rural communities are concerned for their safety, as we have heard from others. We heard that from Senator McCarthy last week, and from Senator Ahearn. We have heard about rural communities and farming communities. This is an issue throughout the country. I will comment on Senator Ryan's thoughtful contribution about living with fear and the fact that no one deserves to live with fear. That was an important statement about how we address safety for different communities and populations.”
“While I welcome that, by removing the checks and balances of the triple lock we risk engaging in military contexts outside the remit of our neutrality, and we also risk calling that neutrality into question on the international stage. I would welcome a debate on the matter.”
“It is within this context that the planned Bill to remove the triple lock is considered to be reckless, without outlining an alternative mechanism for deploying troops. It is deeply ill-conceived to remove a mechanism that provides three layers of safeguards before the deployment of troops without providing a viable alternative. There should not be a Bill on the removal of the triple lock until such a stage as a viable alternative has been presented to the public and we have been given credible time to scrutinise and review that alternative mechanism. I acknowledge that the Government has said it intends to maintain Ireland's policy on military neutrality.”
“It ensures that Ireland does not engage in military actions abroad without international legitimacy, which we gain through the UN. It aligns with Ireland's long-standing stance on avoiding military alliances. The triple lock ensures that Irish peacekeeping forces operate under UN mandates and reinforces our commitment to collective security rather than military alliances. Everyone in this Chamber will remember the very tragic death of Private Seán Rooney in 2022 while on peacekeeping duties in Lebanon. We also all remember the encroachment on Camp Shamrock last year by the IDF and the calls from the public for the removal of our peacekeepers from the region, such was the fear of further deaths.”
“There has been significant discussion in the media recently regarding the lifting of the triple lock mechanism and it is within this context that I ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to come to the Chamber for a debate on the proposed Bill to remove the triple lock, which is included in the Government's spring legislative agenda. This is not just a technical change in policy that is being proposed. The triple lock is a fundamental part of our overall approach to peacekeeping and neutrality. The Government has said that there is no connection between the triple lock and neutrality: however this is simply not the case; they are deeply interconnected. The triple lock was devised to ensure our neutrality.”
“As I said earlier today, I am not inherently opposed to this but we need a meaningful business case to bring this to the public and to make sure we are reinforcing public trust in our work. I do not consider the process we are hearing about to be very strategic. We may potentially undermine the trust the public will have in the political system. That is why I have brought forward this amendment.”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 3, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 3A of Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial and Court Offices (Amendment) Act 1998 2. The Minister shall lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas within 3 months of the passing of this Act on the need and appropriateness of expanding the number of Ministers of State.”. I have spoken on this before. I appreciate that the Minister of State has given us various examples of what she and the Government believe are good uses of public spending. However, these are anecdotal and we need to see more evidence to really talk about strategic benefit. What we have heard today is not evidence or data. It is not what I would describe as a meaningful business case for bringing this forward.”
“I am proposing that instead of pursuing this, we introduce an amendment with a request that the Government brings us a report within the next three months outlining the evidence, findings and facts to demonstrate that having these additional Ministries will provide better value for money and better services for people.”
“As I said, we should not be pursuing what is outlined in this section without having the report, on which I have introduced an amendment under the next section. I will speak to my points again. We should not be pursuing this. We have no evidence that having additional Ministers will bring value for money. We have instances of misuse of public spending. It is no one's fault, but we now have a situation where there is a lack of public trust in decision-making on spending. Yesterday, for example, in respect of arts and culture, we heard about the issue with the €6 million.”
“I believe that making this decision without proper evidence and without a report will be doing that. I am not inherently opposed to the idea of expanding the number of Ministers of State for the work if it needs to be done but I believe that discussion and decision need to be based on evidence, facts and figures. I very much request that, instead of it falling into this Bill, the Government lays a report before both Houses on why this makes sense and why it is good value for money for the taxpayer prior to increasing the number of Ministers of State. I do not believe we can meaningfully evaluate and legislate on it without this report.”
“I would like a report with evidence that actually points to it, including data evidence and compelling business cases. We heard anecdotally this morning about different areas, including for older people, but why can we not put that into reports so we are making this decision on an evidence base? We all have a responsibility, as we are all deeply aware, to the taxpayers. We have a plethora of examples within the past few months - even from yesterday but I will not go into the details - of spending not being made well. The public are not happy about that. Let us not make that same mistake again with this where we are just making a decision without evidence and without proper consideration. We do not want to undermine public trust in the decisions we make.”
“I really appreciate the complexities around government and running a country. I do not believe we should shy away from that but we need to make sure that evolution is happening in a way that is meaningfully considered. Senator Craughwell said it might make for better management. I would like us to make this decision on evidence. I will introduce an amendment later that requests a report within three months and, instead of approving this Bill, we would have a report looking at the evidence base. We have had very little meaningful discussion. We as legislators have not been provided with evidence that more Ministers of State will indeed make the State run more efficiently. It seems to be taken as read and as assumed that having more Ministers of State will make the work more efficient, but I do not want to take that as assumed.”
“Then, the people fleeing those situations - women or men - have nowhere to go after the fact. I would welcome a debate with the Minister for housing on special provisions for gender-based violence survivors.”
“I welcome Senator O'Loughlin referring to gender-based violence in her contribution. It is an important issue that we as a House should be addressing. We have issues in Ireland in relation to how we respond to gender-based violence. Across December and January, eight women on the island of Ireland were killed: Malika Noor Al Katib, Vanessa O'Callaghan, Searon Naughton, Karen Cummings, Mirjana Pap, Paula Canty, Annie Heyneman and Gillian Curran. Six of these women were killed by people they knew. I would, therefore, welcome a debate with the Minister for Justice about how we respond to gender-based violence, as well as with the Minister for housing concerning how we make provisions for those people trying to flee domestic violence situations. Our refuges are full. They are short-term places where people go fleeing circumstances.”
“When I work with colleagues as a Senator, I will be putting in peace in all its various forms so that we can deliver meaningful change for communities in Ireland and abroad.”
“It was great to hear the Cathaoirleach talk about the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland. With that in mind, and I have led my life and worked in peacebuilding, peace must be our ultimate goal in all the work we do, whether that is at home or internationally. Again, when we talk about our neutrality, that can undermine the ultimate objective of peace. Domestically, we cannot have resilient communities that thrive and prosper if people are not able to live in peace. That means they need a safe and secure place to live. They need access to affordable healthcare, disability rights and reliable public services. When 500,000 adult children are living in their childhood home and children are growing up in emergency accommodation, these people are not living at peace.”
“It is incredibly important to me to be a voice for people across this island, when we think about the future of the island and how we can work together in communities from different backgrounds, and make sure people are taken into account in that space. As has been discussed, we live in very uncertain times. These are times of conflict and war in Palestine and Ukraine. There is conflict in the DRC and Sudan. In that space, it is very important that as a neutral country we do not get pulled into political dynamics against the will of the Irish people. I truly believe that Ireland's role in the international space is, and should continue to be, being a leader on issues of peace. We can only credibly do that while we maintain our neutrality. I am a child of the Good Friday Agreement.”
“Congratulations to the Cathaoirleach and all my colleagues in this room, including people who have been here previously and new Senators like myself. It is such an honour and a privilege to be in this space. It is very humbling to hear everyone speaking and to be here with them. I look forward to serving people throughout this country very diligently in this role for however long it may be. This House has historically had a very collegiate culture. That is something I wish to bring forward. Working with colleagues in the Chamber across the political spectrum is something that is very important to me. I hope to hold the Government to account in my role on issues such as housing, healthcare, disability rights and making sure that we can build resilient communities in this country. I am a Belfast woman living in the south east.”