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 3 of 28.
“The action plan expands the GP programme for endometriosis diagnosis. I am grateful for that, but I am unclear if this is going to be mandatory for all GPs and if this is going to extend to all women's health conditions or specifically endometriosis. If a GP is not trained in women's health and gynaecology and if he or she is not listening to a patient or do not believe her, how are such women going to get a referral, and ultimately a diagnosis? Why do we not have more GPs across the country who can recognise the symptoms of polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome, PMOS, adenomyosis and endometriosis, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, PMDD, and send patients for appropriate tests. The task force does not go far enough to increase the number of expert gynaecologists providing front-line care. We are still sending women abroad.”
“I thank the Minister of State for coming in. I wish to discuss the third phase of the women's health task force and action plan. Women's health has been neglected for too long in Ireland. Our pain has been minimised. Our voices are absent from medical research. Since my time as a Senator, I have been contacted by many women who have shared their health journeys with me. It is usually stories of frustration, long delays, disbelief at the system, disappointment and the experience of medical gaslighting. Some women outlined the impossible positions they have been put in financially that they cannot afford essential medication needed to manage their conditions. I have raised the question of Ryeqo with the Minister for Health and its funding through the drugs repayment scheme.”
“It is highly interesting that the language around expedited delivery is gone from the provisions being inserted into the 2024 Act. I understood that language, which acknowledged that we need to expedite housing delivery, but that is now gone, and I do not understand that. When I read the legislation, what is serves to do now is make the section not about speeding delivery but about increasing the bottom line for developers, given that the word "expedite" has been removed.”
“Unfortunately, we are only going to be getting hotter summers with climate change, and by approving the provisions in this Bill, we will be reducing the number of windows required by planning permissions for apartment developments. Amendment No. 6 will ensure that the provisions of section 138A(3) do not apply to any development that has not commenced two years prior to the permission being granted. This is to ensure that provisions in this section are not used simply as a way for developers who are sitting on uncommenced sites to increase the speculative value of those sites to make more money by waiting for further legislation. We need to move away from legislation that allows speculators to treat housing as an asset to make more money and profit. We have this model in Ireland, and it is not working.”
“It is simply about creating more potential profit for developers. The core reason for increasing the level of profits in a development is so that developers can make more money. That is the language we are receiving now. Amendment No. 5 deletes paragraph (c) of the newly inserted section 138A, which provides that the design of apartment complexes can be modified to allow for 75% of apartments to be single aspect without such a modification being considered a material alteration, which is huge when we think about what should constitute a material alteration. As Senator Boyhan eloquently outlined, the weather in the past few weeks is testament to how dangerous and risky this provision is with regard to the whole area of single-aspect windows and homes.”
“It is entirely non-compliant with the Aarhus Convention. Instead of fixing issues that have already been raised by the Aarhus Convention compliance committee, this section expands and compounds many of those issues. The provision inserted by the 2025 Act stated that the purpose of the section inserted by this Act was "to facilitate and encourage expedited construction of greater numbers of dwellings in apartment complexes" in the context of the housing crisis. However, the purpose of the section inserted by this Bill is just to enable the construction of a greater number of dwellings within residential developments within the same context. The language around the speeding-up of the delivery of these houses is now gone, which is curious, and the purpose of this Bill becomes much clearer.”
“The 2025 Act created a system whereby the holder of a permission would have to apply to a relevant authority for a certificate certifying a proposed modification. The provisions in the Bill simply declare that the modifications in the newly inserted section 138A are not material alterations and therefore do not constitute a material alteration of a planning permission. The alterations permitted are clearly significant material alterations, so the fundamental approach of this section is flawed. It takes powers away from the local authorities when, in fact, we should be strengthening the powers of local authorities for decision-making under section 140 with regard to what constitutes a material alteration. We are undermining the role of local authorities rather than strengthening them.”
“Section 62 inserts provisions that allow for alterations to planning permissions that may consist of increases in the number of apartments and decreases in the sizes of apartments in a development, in the number of windows in those apartments, the heights of the ceilings and the number of lifts and stairwells in these developments. Senator Boyhan spoke eloquently around the impact that these alterations could have on the development of society and positive places to live. The Minister of State stated that these are carrying over the provisions that were inserted into the Planning and Development Act 2000 by the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2025 and the Planning and Development Act 2024, but there are significant changes in these methods by which these alterations can occur.”
“These amendments, in essence, make provision for a use-it-or-lose-it clause. Amendment No. 6 states: "An alteration of a permission referred to in subsection (3) shall be considered a material alteration if substantial works have not commenced 2 years from the point the permission was granted." We need this use-it-or-lose-it clause because we have a situation where people are receiving planning permission but are not actually commencing that permission. Now they will be allowed to extend the permission further on an asset. That is highly problematic.”
“The Minister must urgently outline what emergency measures will be put in place to address these legal aid deserts, recruit and retain more solicitors and ensure that no victim is left behind facing the courts alone. I recognise that a committee on domestic gender-based violence, in which Seanad Members will participate, is to be set up in the coming months. We are facing a moment of crisis in this country and if we do not get ahead of it as legislators, it will only get worse. This is a part of that.”
“Only 21% of calls that were made to FLAC last year could be answered. How many of the unanswered calls were related to domestic violence and made by people who did not receive the support they needed? We cannot allow this situation to continue. There is a broad debate happening in the public realm at the moment around legal aid. This is an incredibly vulnerable group of people who are not getting the support they need. Survivors of domestic abuse deserve immediate access to legal aid and representation, regardless of what part of the country they live in. I ask the Seanad to have a debate on this as a matter of priority in September.”
“These are places where people cannot access legal aid, with not enough solicitors available to represent people seeking domestic violence orders and fleeing domestic violence. We have a situation where survivors who find the courage to take the terrifying decision to seek protection discover that there is simply no solicitor available to stand beside them in the court or even answer the phone when they reach out for help. We hear from the Government that we have a zero-tolerance approach to gender-based violence, but zero tolerance must be reflected in the experience of every person who turns to the State for help. That is currently not what is happening. For someone escaping abuse, every delay carries consequences. It means remaining in fear and at risk. The numbers are stark.”
“Today, there is going to be a meeting of the HSE drugs group with those living with Friedreich's ataxia and their families, who have travelled to Dublin. They are desperate for Skyclarys to be made available on the scheme. The drug is the only one that can slow down the cruel and debilitating disease that is Friedreich's ataxia. I have spoken on this before. I hope today brings an end to the fight of these families for access to the much-needed drug. I also raise the issue of legal aid. We are confronted yet again with another stark reminder that words from this Government do not mean much if people cannot access the services they need when they need them. Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, warned yesterday that there are now legal aid deserts across the country.”
“If this Bill is to place social housing and emergency accommodation eligibility on a statutory footing, then we should be satisfied that it is designed with equality and human rights at its core. I am currently not satisfied that has happened but the Minister can tell us what assessments have taken place. We should know that the impacts have been assessed and that unintended consequences have been properly considered because we risk having legislation that is going to create additional barriers when our housing system is surely there to protect people.”
“Laws that appear neutral on the face of it can have very different effects for different groups of people on the ground. Was an equality and human rights impact assessment carried out before the provisions were drafted? The Minister might answer that specifically. How was the impact on people experiencing multiple and overlapping forms of disadvantage assessed within that as well? Inequality is rarely experienced through one single characteristic. It tends to be very intersectional. The public sector equality and human rights duty, which I am sure the Minister is very familiar with, demands that public bodies do not simply treat everyone the same but that they consider whether apparently neutral policies might have unequal impacts on different groups of people. That is what we are trying to get to the nub of here today.”
“When we have a legal test on paper, it might look straightforward but it can have really profound consequences in a person's life if it is applied without sufficient safeguards. Is the Minister confident that this legislation meets our duty and obligations under our IHREC legislation? Dublin Simon Community has said that access to emergency accommodation should always be led by need and not by entitlement. We should not place ourselves in a position where people who are lawfully living in communities, contributing to our society and trying to rebuild lives are left without the possibility of securing a home because our legislation fails to reflect the realities they face. The habitual residence requirement might appear straightforward but the lived reality is often anything but that.”
“The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, has warned that this Bill risks excluding some of the most vulnerable people in our society from accessing social housing support, including victims and survivors of domestic and gender-based violence, people who have experienced trafficking and members of the migrant community. These concerns have been echoed by the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, the Irish Refugee Council and many others working day to day with people who already face significant barriers in finding a safe and secure home. They are not asking for special treatment; they are asking to ensure that the law does not create new barriers for people who are already incredibly vulnerable. Every good legislation should recognise the human story behind it that it is trying to fix. That might include violence and hardships.”
“No one is disputing that states - any state or this State - can establish criteria for social housing but I think it is important that when we are legislating in an area that directly affects the right to adequate housing, we have a duty to ensure that those criteria are fair, proportionate and fully consistent with human rights and equality obligations. Housing is more than bricks and mortar. It is about safety and dignity. It is about whether a child has somewhere to sleep, whether a woman escaping abuse can rebuild her life or whether a person with a disability has the stability everyone deserves. This is why the legislation before us really needs careful scrutiny.”
“The Minister comes in and speaks about the Department and its responsibilities and remit. If the AI office is an independent office, which the Minister of State presents that it is-----”
“The Minister of State said that it is an independent body. She said she previously experienced being a committee chair and Ministers coming in and speaking about their Department because that it is their brief. At the same time, she is telling us that this other body is independent but it cannot speak for itself. Does this body sit under the Department? I know it is housed within, but will it be independent? What the Minister of State has just presented is that the Minister will come into committees and speak for it. She said that the standard practice is for the Minister to come in. I said it is okay for heads of State bodies to come in and that they do it is all the time. I am trying to point out that there is a contradiction in what the Minister of State presented.”
“The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, comes in. It is an independent State body. It comes in all the time. Again, I do not see why it is different for one State body versus the other. That is the point. It feels like we are creating a complete distinction in process specifically for this AI office.”
“They are responsible for making assessments as well, presumably. If we are talking about innovation and literacy, those things are linked. The responsibility of the office is linked to those things. It feels like we are trying to reduce accountability and transparency, which is the opposite. That is not good practice.”
“Yes, policy development rests with Ministers, but it is normal for State bodies to come in and present their opinion on policy and how it impacts their ability to do their jobs. That is linked. They are not separate things. I do not get it. What the Minister of State said about going to PAC and talking about the accounting, budgeting and books is fine. However, poor policy often leads to wasteful spending. We often hear those discussions coming out in PAC in various areas because, again, they are inextricably linked. We cannot say that witnesses are just going to come in to talk about the books or their overspending or underspending and the nuts and bolts of financial management. That is linked to the policy delivery. Again, I do not understand it. It is a bad precedent to be setting.”
“The CEO should be able to make an assessment, good or bad, on Government policy and decisions because they are there to provide expertise and guidance on the use of AI, and to protect citizens and their rights when it comes to AI. I find it extraordinary that the CEO would be gagged from providing evidence in our Oireachtas and Parliament, and that they are effectively not allowed to have opinions on Government policy. I really do not agree with this in any way and it is an awful precedent to set.”
“I agree with Senator Ruane. Under the current provisions, the Government has created a system where the CEO cannot comment on Government policy in the public accounts committee or in any other committee. They are effectively curtailed from doing their job, which is to regulate and to challenge the Government. That is why the independence piece we have been banging on about for the duration of this debate is so important. They have to be able to challenge the Government. We have a right, a responsibility and a constitutional role to play in this as parliamentarians, and this is stopping them from speaking to us. It is very unusual for this to be permitted.”
“I move amendment No. 34: In page 24, lines 37 to 39, to delete all words from and including “furnish” in line 37 down to and including line 39 and substitute the following: “ensure that the statement is laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable.”.”
“I move amendment No. 32: In page 24, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “(d) the Chief Executive Officer has, in the view of the Board, a conflict of interest of such significance that the Chief Executive Officer should cease to hold office.”.”
“Amendment No. 32 mirrors the language in the section on the board being removed in the case of conflicts of interest. The Bill currently contains conflict of interest provisions for the board members, but not for the CEO. That seems like a mistake. I do not know why we would not have this consistent across both. Amendment No. 34 seeks to ensure that a statement is laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as is practicable, which reflects the language of the IHREC Act. Instead of going through the Minister for the report, the report would come straight to the Houses of the Oireachtas. This emphasises, once again, the independence of the office. We do not believe it should be in the Minister’s gift to deliver that report to us should he or she wish.”
“I move amendment No. 27: In page 22, to delete lines 25 to 30. Amendment No. 27 seeks to remove the part, as I have mentioned, that allows the Minister to appoint the first CEO and for them to have a full five-year term. I do not agree with that and I have said it before. I do not think it provides good governance. I do not think it provides the correct independence from the Department as is needed. If someone is the direct line manager, effectively, in appointing someone who is supposed to provide guidance but also provide a critique on policy decisions that are being made, what are the power dynamics within that which would allow someone to do their job independently? I know the Minister of State is not going to accept the amendment. However, along with all the other amendments, it is about seeking good governance and good structures.”
“I move amendment No. 16: In page 18, line 25, to delete “The Minister may remove a member of the Board from office if he or she is” and substitute “The Government may remove a member of the Board from office if they are”.”
“(3) A person appointed under subsection (1) is eligible for reappointment to the Board on the expiry of the unexpired period but shall not hold office for more than 2 further consecutive terms and in any event shall not hold office for periods the aggregate of which exceeds 8 years.”.”
“I move amendment No. 14: In page 17, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “Casual vacancies in membership of Board 16. (1) If a member of the Board resigns, dies or ceases to hold office (otherwise than by effluxion of time), the Government shall, as soon as practicable, appoint a person from among such persons as are recommended by the Public Appointments Service in 6 in accordance with section 13# to be a member of the Board to fill the casual vacancy so occasioned. (2) A person appointed under subsection (1) shall hold office for the unexpired period of his or her predecessor’s term of office, as the Government may determine.”
“As I will discuss later, I do not think that it should be the Minister who appoints the CEO. I do not think that is appropriate. I do not think it provides the necessary independence. It should be a completely separate system. One of the rationales given was that it is the Minister who makes these appointments. I do not think that the Minister should make those appointments so that rationale does not stick. I ask the Minister of State to speak more broadly as to why the Minister of State has chosen this approach when so many of the other bodies take a different approach and have more independence.”
“In answer to one of the points made by the Minister of State, I still do not understand why we would not follow models like IHREC and the DPC. The Minister of State has not answered the rationale. I appreciate that some bodies might operate with this model but the Minister of State has not explained the rationale for not copying the model for those important regulatory bodies that we have in Ireland like Coimisiún na Meán, the DPC and IHREC. I do not understand why a different process is being chosen here. I do not conceptually understand why. To what purpose? For what end? The Minister of State made the point that it is not the responsibility of the Government to deal with terminations or the removal of people from office because it is the Minister who appoints them.”
“She does not need to speak to every single amendment since some of them are basically the same in different parts in the legislation, but why are we not matching and replicating the models that exist and function well?”
“Maybe the Minister of State could speak to why we have chosen to pursue a different process from that for other independent State bodies, such as the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, the Data Protection Commission, DPC, and Coimisiún na Meán in this. I was speaking to amendment No. 13 but, actually, all the amendments in that list - amendments Nos. 14, 16, 18 to 26, inclusive, 29 to 31, inclusive, 33, 46, 74, 75 and 89 to 91, inclusive - relate basically to the same concepts of making sure the processes we are following for this independent body are exactly the same and that the model is the same as the other one. Perhaps the Minister of State could speak broadly to that.”
“That is why so many organisations, advocacy groups and parliamentarians are concerned that this office is, for some reason, having different standards and procedures applied that do not match the model that works and functions properly. Perhaps the Minister of State will explain why we have created a system here that is somehow different from the operating models we already have.”
“Some of the amendments are consequential, so all of them would need to be included for them to function. I know a few of them have been debated in the Dáil as well. The Minister may remove a member of the board from office if he or she does something wrong. I am substituting that with "the Government" may remove. It is just about creating more accountability and ensuring that more people are involved in these processes. Critically, it is exactly the same process that exists for Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Data Protection Commission and Coimisiún na Meán. We have these independent State bodies already. We have processes for independent State bodies. They are functioning well and instead of copying that, we are doing something different with this legislation. I do not understand why.”
“I move amendment No. 13: In page 16, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “Conditions of office of membership of Board 14. (1) A member of the Board may at any time by notice in writing to the Government— (a) resign from the Board, or (b) in the case of the chairperson, with or without resigning from the Board, resign from the office of chairperson. (2) A resignation under subsection (1) takes effect on the date specified in the notice to the Government, or on the date on which the Government receives the notice, whichever is the later.”. All the amendments in this grouping are to do with good governance and creating more transparency and accountability so that everything is not in the hands of one individual or Department.”
“(10) In exceptional circumstances, where the Government, for substantial and stated reasons, is unable to accept the recommendation by the Service of a particular person, it shall inform the Service of that fact and the reasons for it and shall request the Service to make another recommendation in respect of the vacancy and, the Service shall— (a) consider the Government’s reasons, and (b) unless the Service disagrees with the reasons and wishes to make representations to the Government in that behalf, make another recommendation for appointment to the Board.”.”
“(6) The Service may adopt such procedures as it thinks fit to carry out its functions under this section. (7) A person shall not be recommended for appointment by the Government under this section unless the person is, in the opinion of the Service and the Government agrees, suitably qualified for such appointment by reason of his or her possessing such relevant experience, training or expertise as is appropriate having regard in particular to the functions conferred on the Board by or under this Act. (8) The Service shall provide the Government with particulars of experience, training and expertise of the person whom it recommends under this section. (9) Where the Service makes a recommendation for the appointment of a person to the Board, the Government shall accept that recommendation.”
“(3) The Service shall appoint the members of the selection panel from amongst persons who, in the opinion of the Service, have relevant experience of, and expertise in relation to, matters connected with any or all of the following: (a) human rights matters or human rights law; (b) equality matters or equality law; (c) public sector administration and reform; (d) board management and corporate governance; (e) industrial relations; (f) climate or energy systems. (4) The Minister shall agree with the Service the selection criteria and process to be implemented in respect of the filling of any vacancy on the Board. (5) A vacancy on the Board shall be advertised publicly and shall include details of the agreed selection criteria for the filling of the vacancy and the process to be implemented in respect of the filling of that vacancy.”
“I move amendment No. 10: In page 16, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following: “Recommendations for appointment of members of Board 13. (1) A member of the Board shall be appointed by the Government. (2) Where a vacancy arises, or is anticipated will arise, on the Board, the Government shall, for the purposes of identifying persons and making recommendations to the Government in respect of those persons for appointment as members of the Board, invite the Service to undertake a selection competition.”
“(10) Subject to sections 17 and 18 , a member of the Board shall hold office on such terms and conditions as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, determines.”.”
“(7) Subject to subsection (8) , a member of the Board whose term of office expires with the passage of time shall be eligible for re-appointment to the Board. (8) A person who is reappointed to be a member of the Board in accordance with subsection (7) shall not hold office for more than 2 consecutive terms and, in any event, may not hold office for periods the aggregate of which exceeds 8 years. (9) Where it is proposed to reappoint a person as a member of the Board in accordance with subsection (3) , it shall not be necessary for the person to participate in a further selection process undertaken by the Public Appointments Service under section 13 or to be recommended for reappointment by the Public Appointments Service.”
“(4) Each member of the Board shall hold his or her office on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Government at the time of his or her appointment and shall, subject to subsection (8) , be eligible for re-appointment for a further term not exceeding 4 years. (5) The Board may act notwithstanding any vacancy among its members (including one or more vacancies that result in subsection (1) or (2) not being complied with). (6) Of the persons who on establishment day are to comprise the members of the Board— (a) one less than half of such members shall be appointed for a term of 3 years, and (b) the remainder of such members, including the Chairperson, shall be appointed for a term of 4 years.”
“I move amendment No. 8: In page 15, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: “Establishment and membership of Board 12. (1) The Board shall consist of such and so many members (not being more than 11 and less than 7) as the Government determines. (2) Of the members of the Board, not less than 3 of them shall be men and not less than 3 of them shall be women, and in a case where there are 10 or more members, not less than 5 of them shall be men and not less than 5 of them shall be women. (3) Each member of the Board shall be appointed by the Government, in accordance with section 13, and shall hold office for such period not exceeding 5 years, as the Government may determine when appointing him or her.”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 14, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “(f) prepare and publish, in such manner as it sees fit, reports including reports on any research undertaken, sponsored, commissioned or assisted by it,”.”
“If the office is doing reports into specific cases or specific regulation issues more broadly, providing that evidence and the detail of the report it had looked into to parliamentarians, advocacy groups and citizens would be really important. We talked a bit last week about enterprise versus rights and the Minister of State has talked about the AI Act adopting a rights-based model, which is true. While the Act may have identified protections, we do not see that laid out when it comes to the functions of the office. In many ways, some of those protections have been left out. Say, for the regulatory matters that are prescribed in the AI Act itself, the office does not seem to serve the same rights-based model, quite frankly. That is why having things like "ethical and responsible" and "ethical and sustainable" in amendments Nos.”
“I also wanted to speak to amendment No. 5. I apologise, I had not realised it was in this grouping. This is for the regulator to be able to publish its reports publicly. I think the Minister of State mentioned in the Dáil that the Bill already considers a number of provisions designed to ensure transparency and accountability in the performance of the office's function, including requirements to prepare a strategy statement and an annual report, both of which would be published. That is great but having a publishing function for all types of reports that the office would be looking into is not exactly the same as publishing the annual report and the strategy statement. That is different.”