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 5 of 28.
“We have seen no prosecutions and no sanctions for this, and the stark reality is that this feature still exists and can be accessed in this country with the right technology. We have not effectively safeguarded the public, including women, children and minorities, from this harmful technology. It is still accessible. People can still promote child sexual abuse material and image-based sexual material using the technology made available to them by a private company that operates in Ireland. Another threat we cannot overlook is that of labour displacement. Recently, 720 workers from the Dublin-based Covalen company heard they were going to be made redundant thanks to AI. This is just coming down the line to us.”
“I see it particularly when we talk about medical science, but we also need to get serious about the scale of harm and potential for harm coming down the road to us if we do not regulate these companies in any meaningful way. The Grok AI nudification scandal showcased how completely unprepared we are at home and abroad, at EU level, to counter these threats and X effectively got away with a slap on the wrist. The company was asked to please not do it again and allow sexual abuse imagery material of children and adults to be developed on its platform because we would really like it not to. It shows the complete contempt with which these companies view us and governments. They did not even attend the Oireachtas media committee, such is the contempt with which they view our parliamentary process.”
“AI companies will rush out systems that can have incredibly dangerous implications. It is ridiculous that they will have this window in which they can still produce this because the high-risk system regulation will not be retroactive for new pieces of tech. That is stuff that might be dealing with complex and sensitive child welfare cases and medical AI cases. We know, in the case of social media and entertainment, that AI is algorithmically driven to addict the human brain. All of those high-risk systems have this extra time in which they can be developed and not come under the regulation. That is really worrying. We can talk about the enormous opportunity and potential for good, regulated AI.”
“It further speaks to the power of the big tech lobby at home and in Brussels, which continues to consolidate its power and influence over politics to a frightening degree. We see this with passage of the EU’s digital omnibus on Al - a worrying deregulation agenda. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, does not agree with me on that but it is serving to critically weaken the Al Act and playing right into the hands of big tech. We had some wins in provisions around data participation in the digital omnibus but simplification is weakening rights, rather than strengthening them. There will still be use of incredibly sensitive data in AI systems and the high-risk implementation period has been extended. High-risk systems do not need to be compliant until next year.”
“Before addressing the content of the Bill, I want to speak to larger concerns I have with the Government's approach to AI and big tech regulation. Time and again we hear the industry narrative being peddled that we need to maintain the competitiveness and viability of Ireland's digital economy. The conversation is always framed in terms of innovation and enterprise, rather than the protection of fundamental rights and the litany of harms and threats posed by this tech, which is evolving faster than many governments in Europe, including this one, can keep up. The location of the new Al office within the Department of enterprise speaks to the centrality of this business-first approach to governance, rather than putting human rights first.”
“The establishment of a statutory body and the regulatory framework for the supervision and enforcement of the Al Act in the State is inherently complex. It is critical we get it right and we have to have sufficient time to do that, which was not afforded to us. I echo the comments of my colleague, Deputy Gibney, in the Dáil last night that it is troubling that the Al committee did not have the opportunity to engage effectively with this Bill, despite the gravity of what we are dealing with. While I welcome the move to give full effect to the EU Al Act, as provided for in this Bill, we need to be treating this as the “minimum baseline for national Al regulation, not a maximum standard”, as was the view of the joint AI committee.”
“Al regulation has been a long time coming. It is one of the most pressing challenges we face. It has changed the way we work, our entire understanding of the world and our ability to discern truth from fiction when we see what AI can produce. It is good we are discussing regulation and this directive is finally being transposed but I want to express serious concern about the manner in which this is being done. It is being rushed through with very little parliamentary scrutiny, despite our having years of lead time to prepare for this. While preparing my notes for this evening, I could not even read back the transcript for last night, such is the speed with which we are rushing this through at the end of term and not allowing meaningful time for scrutiny of such a large, complex piece of legislation.”
“There is obviously the issue around ring-fencing at the EU level but regardless of how the negotiations manifest in Brussels, we can make our own national commitment to ring-fencing for the local development companies network, LCDN. The LCDN is seeking an additional €10 million to sustain SICAP funding. That was its recent request. The Minister of State has outlined the importance of the work it is doing.”
“The ultimate decision on how Ireland chooses to fund rural and community development is made by the Irish Government, regardless of the decision around ring-fencing that happens in Brussels. The current allocation is €180 million for five years and it does not meet existing needs. The LDCN is requesting a return to pre-austerity funding of around €450 million. Could the Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, comment on what funding commitment will be made towards this in the next budget and on SICAP funding? SICAP has an exceptional track record in tackling disadvantage, supporting employment, reducing exclusion and fostering integration in communities in Kilkenny and beyond.”
“The EU's decision to remove the ring-fencing obligation has raised questions and worries about what the future of LEADER will look like. The Local Development Companies Network, LDCN, is worried that the integration of LEADER funding into broader CAP funding will see a decrease in the dedicated ring-fenced budget, which may lead to greatly reduced programming in rural and traditionally isolated communities. While discussions continue at EU level on the next multi-annual financial framework, on which we will obviously be highly engaged in our capacity during the EU Presidency, and on the future of the LEADER programme beyond 2028, we need to be very clear about what this is going to look like for programming at home.”
“I welcome the opportunity today to raise the matter of the future funding for Kilkenny LEADER Partnership and, indeed, all local development companies and networks across the country. I acknowledge the incredible work of Kilkenny LEADER through the LEADER programme and also through social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, funding. Every day, it supports rural businesses, helps people to enter employment, provides education and training opportunities, and does a huge amount of work strengthening social and cultural integration within our communities. It is often the first place people turn to when they need practical support. LEADER has had some really exceptional success on the ground in crucial community development. With that in mind, there is a lot of uncertainty about future funding.”
“How can we bring transparency to this so that it is not simply a matter of "case closed", with Tusla choosing not to pursue the matter without saying why? Are there ways that process could be strengthened to have more transparency?”
“Going back to amendment No. 19 and the second part of it, which is around the request, the Minister said there would be circumstances where giving out the information that might be associated with someone making a request to understand why a case was not being brought forward would potentially put people at risk. Will he outline the procedures provided for under the Bill in that instance? The amendment refers to providing reasons for the decision to the person who made the request. I appreciate what the Minister said, that providing the rationale for any decision to any person who makes a request would be open-ended. Are there changes that could be made to this amendment to provide for instances involving someone with a vested interest in the case?”
“It is about strengthening the practical operation of the Bill by introducing an important safeguard to ensure no applications are missed in cases where a child's best interest may require court intervention.”
“Everyone in this space wants children's safeguarding to be transparent and open. We are all here to put the child's best interests at the centre of all decisions. Several of the amendments laid out in this grouping give a voice to those closest to the child without taking away the professional judgment of staff at Tusla. If Valerie's law is about putting children first, we should make sure that there is a clear way for those acting in the best interests of the child to be able to just knock on the door and ask the State to act and to have a clear pathway by which to do that. It might be that all that is required is for someone to be asking that question. This amendment makes sure that the question can be asked and the pathway is there.”
“I thank the Minister. I, too, acknowledge David French and his family, who have fought so hard in tragic circumstances for his sister, Valerie. No family should have to suffer like that and certainly no children should ever have to suffer like that. I will speak specifically to amendment No. 19. It is designed to make sure that no child falls through the cracks and to provide a pathway for those closest to the child, their guardian ad litem or relative, to ask Tusla to look at the case because they believe action is needed. It does not force Tusla to make an application but it ensures that concerns can be raised and do not just disappear into the ether. It is asking that if Tusla decides not to proceed, it should be required to explain why. It is about transparency and providing a platform for openness.”
“If it is a question of seeking justice or overcoming traumatising events in life, they will not seek counselling. No survivor should be asked to sacrifice their mental health to preserve access to justice. It is time to end this harmful practice, to protect the confidentiality of counselling and to ensure survivors of sexual violence can pursue both recovery and justice without being forced to choose between them.”
“The National Women's Council of Ireland has consistently highlighted how the disclosure of counselling notes acts as a barrier to reporting sexual violence and accessing support services. DRCC has described the practice as one of the most retraumatising aspects of the criminal justice process. Survivors repeatedly report feeling forced to choose between counselling and seeking justice. The provisions outlined will not see any improvements in that. We cannot be okay with this practice being continued. Confidential therapeutic notes are often sought not because they are evidence of a crime but because they undermine the credibility of a survivor. It has broader consequences. If survivors fear seeking counselling could jeopardise a future prosecution, some will choose not to get counselling.”
“Counselling notes created to facilitate healing are being weaponised routinely against victims. The decision not to take on board any of the recommendations from survivor groups and advocacy groups during the Dáil Stages of the Bill was incredibly disappointing for many survivors. Another key gap is mandatory jury warning. Currently, counselling notes and applicable records can be used in trial, even though they contain basically opinions, summaries and interpretations by therapists. They are not intended as factual records of events and the jury must be made aware of their serious limitations as evidence. Therapy notes do not have a judicial purpose. Treating them as if they do fundamentally misunderstands their purpose. Counselling notes are not witness statements. Evidence from front-line organisations tells us this needs to stop.”
“Under the Bill, counselling notes can be disclosed not only if there is a risk regarding a fair trial but also on the nebulous ground of "otherwise in the interests of justice". I urge the Minister to reconsider this. DRCC has warned its retention in respect of counselling notes will facilitate continued routine applications for disclosure in sexual assault cases, even though we were promised that would not be the case. It is an horrific practice and we cannot allow it to continue. The Irish Council for Psychotherapy has stated unequivocally that therapy notes are not evidentiary records; they are created with a confidential therapeutic relationship based on trust and safety. When that confidentiality is breached, trust in the entire process is undermined.”
“Under this new legislation, those confidential records can be subject to disclosure applications and can be used to challenge a survivor's credibility. In February, the Minister promised to introduce a presumption of non-disclosure in respect of counselling notes but his proposals today do not provide that. There is no express presumption of non-disclosure because the provisions leave room for the courts to interpret them as not amounting to a statutory privilege. That is a major issue. I urge the Minister to reconsider and to provide an unambiguous statutory presumption of non-disclosure. Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, DRCC, has identified serious concerns about the threshold for disclosure.”
“We already know that so many victims and survivors do not come forward and the fact that people choose not to do so, in itself, represents a total failure of the justice system. When a victim who has been through horrific sexual violence takes the courageous step to access counselling, that should always be done in complete confidence. Counselling notes are an issue of dignity, privacy and whether survivors can access support without fear of their most personal conversations later being scrutinised in a courtroom. Counselling is an essential part of recovery. It is where survivors begin processing their trauma and trying to rebuild their life, and where they try to regain the control over their lives that was taken from them through the sexual violence.”
“I find this Bill an incredibly frustrating and cruel way to deal with legislation given the really good initiatives we have, such as the provision of redress for gay men by disregarding their historic convictions under the archaic laws that criminalised homosexuality in Ireland, which I wholeheartedly endorse. We have the ban on sex for rent, which I also wholeheartedly endorse, alongside some incredibly problematic measures such as the one on counselling notes, which is going to be the focus of my speaking time today. When a victim comes forward to report a sexual assault or rape, it can be one of the most difficult times in their life. What lies ahead is physical examination, where appropriate, making statements to gardaí, an investigation and, if it is possible, a trial.”
“The risk to human life and human rights is too great and it is for that reason that I hope the Government will not only not oppose this Bill, but seek its quick processing through both the Seanad and the Dáil. I note a point made by Senator Higgins in 2024 at the Joint Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science when she was scrutinising legislation on Horizon funding, which is that we are seeing Horizon funding support cross-fertilisation into these types of civil and defence dual-use technologies and AI technologies. We therefore need to explore where that funding is going and whether it is going in to support the use of automated weapons.”
“That is violent on an unprecedented scale. The US military uses AI technology to save time in identifying as many targets as possible. Human beings are simply reduced to data points. They are sorted, scored and processed for elimination. Elimination, of course, is death. It sounds dystopian but it is happening today. It seems that Iran is a laboratory and the US and Israel are acting as scientists, testing their toys on a civilian population. We also know there is significant money to be made in this industry. It is a big money-making industry and introducing legislation to ban further development and use of autonomous weapons will probably not go down with major tech and military companies but any rules to safeguard human lives have to be prioritised.”
“There is still a lack of understanding of how these weapon systems work and it is crucial to emphasise the existential threat posed by the proliferation of the autonomous weapons. We need to devise solutions to restrict their use. We have grown accustomed to AI recommending podcasts we might like to listen to and certain products it pushes us to buy, and we have serious concerns about that, but AI is also recommending human targets to the US and Israeli militaries, and militaries all over the world. It is recommending different people that they can kill. Anthropic's large language model, Claude, assisted the US military in recommending strikes in Iran. AI recommended the targets and the soldiers pulled the trigger. More than 1,000 targets were struck within a 24-hour period, including many residential areas.”
“It is important to understand how bias in autonomous weapon systems threatens compliance with international humanitarian law, and the legal implications of this have to be addressed. We have heard chilling reports of drone strikes on civilians in Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon and Iran. What is frightening is states' inability or unwillingness to draw a red line that states that using drones in AI to target humans is wrong and a step too far. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots notes that the vast majority of states are in favour of introducing binding legislation to regulate and prohibit autonomy in weapons systems. As far back as 2019, Irish people were cognisant of these harms, when 81% of people surveyed were in favour of a ban.”
“What is worrying is the opacity with which artificial intelligence is learning and making decisions. In many cases, we simply do not know how AI is making automated decisions. It operates within this black box. We have no oversight of it at all. AI is really good at crunching numbers and analysing vast volumes of data quickly but it struggles in situations where context is essential. Another worry with AI is the inherent discrimination built into its systems, which we cannot discern. The question is: who is programming the algorithms? AI is superior in one way, in that it does not suffer from cognitive bias but when it is fed biased data, which is always the case, it takes that bias and runs with it. Concerns around bias have come up in the policy debates on autonomous weapons but the topic has not been considered or explored in depth.”
“Rather than minimising harm, these AI tools have effectively turbocharged the pace and scale of deadly force but repackaged it under the guise of algorithmic efficiency, often against civilians. What was once decision support by AI has evolved into decision automation and the effects on human lives are devastating. Across the board, we as legislators are constantly sprinting to keep up with the rapid evolution of AI technology. Where appropriate, AI technology should be harnessed to support human decision-making that promotes well-being and positivity in society. However, in the use of AI in autonomous weapon systems, the human element is entirely removed. People cannot reason with an algorithm or an AI weapon. They cannot question it or talk down to it, and drones cannot be tried in a court of law.”
“The Lavender AI programme, very sweetly named, automatically scans surveillance databases to generate the names of thousands of suspects for targeting. Lavender can identify targets in just 20 seconds, without any human oversight at all. The IDF uses the programme Where's Daddy? It uses AI technology to track and target Palestinians through their mobile phones. It then marks the exact moment when they return home to their families. Daddy comes into the house and the Where's Daddy? technology triggers an attack, usually at night. Entire families have been targeted and murdered using this form of weaponised AI. Far from being accidental casualties and a consequence of AI's tendency to get things wrong, these practices are designed to deliberately kill as many people as possible with minimal personnel needed.”
“This is a warning that should be alarming to all of us and we must heed it. Since 2014, UN member states have been debating proposed regulations on autonomous weapon systems under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, but so far there has not been a consensus on the definition of "lethal autonomous weapon systems". There has not been a clear roadmap on how to effectively legislate for what constitutes meaningful human control. We must, therefore, act domestically. International agreements are the best solution, but in lieu of that, we must have our own domestic legislation. As was said earlier, Ireland could lead on this issue. We could be the first to do it and then have it rolled out elsewhere. Since 2014, in the meantime, the IDF has used AI technology to target and kill Palestinian civilians.”
“The threat these weapons pose to human life and human rights cannot be overstated. Increasingly, we are seeing the reduction of meaningful human control in the design and implementation of AI systems as the technology continues to evolve. This technology only serves to accelerate our own digital dehumanisation and we must, therefore, work collaboratively on an international level to halt the race to the bottom in the evolution of autonomous technologies. This is what we are seeing now: a race to the bottom to have the most effective AI technologies which are used to murder civilians. I would not normally cite the Pope, but as we have already heard, he has recently called for the disarmament of AI, citing his serious concerns that AI poses an extreme danger to humanity and lowers the threshold to war.”
“I thank the Minister of State for being here. I welcome the Bill being brought forward by Senator Alice-Mary Higgins and my Civil Engagement Group colleagues. It is powerful and pertinent legislation. It is calling for a moratorium on the design, production, sale and use of autonomous weapons. It is in line with calls from the UN to introduce international legislation to ban their use outright. These weapon systems, which include advanced drones to target and apply force, operate without any human oversight. They are programmed to hunt and they are programmed to kill. They lack empathy and the ability to make ethical judgements, and, ultimately, they are unaccountable under international law. As we have heard before, the Secretary General of the UN has called these weapon systems morally repugnant and said they have no place in our world.”
“This amendment simply seeks to achieve this evidence and analysis so that future politicians can be informed by a proper assessment to encourage smaller firms to be able to take an active participation in the current procurement processes we have.”
“It is pretty straightforward in purpose to assess whether contractual forms could increase competition, broaden access to public contracts and then create opportunities for smaller firms to participate in major infrastructure projects at a time when we desperately need greater capacity across our construction sector. We have sat on the Joint Committee on Infrastructure and National Development Plan Delivery and heard about how smaller firms are not able to access and cannot compete with the larger firms. Building up that local and indigenous expertise of construction companies would actually be super beneficial for critical infrastructure projects but also the wider infrastructure we are delivering, whether that is in housing or elsewhere.”
“All contractors remain liable for any defects for which they may be responsible. It also ensures fairness in how liability works. It acts to encourage more companies to tender by making public contracts more attractive and less risky. The Civil Liability Act already allows for it. Section 35(1) explicitly recognises that parties may enter contracts limiting liability to just their share. This amendment does not mandate any changes to procurement practises. Instead, it asks the Minister to examine and report on the potential impact of introducing net contribution clauses in public construction contracts.”
“I move amendment No. 9: In page 7, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Report on net contribution clauses 9. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before Dáil Éireann on the potential impacts of introducing net contribution clauses to public construction contracts, so as to facilitate greater competition and access to smaller engineering and architecture firms.”. The effect of this amendment is to increase opportunities for smaller construction firms. Currently, there are prohibitively high operating costs and insurance costs, which preclude many smaller engineering or construction firms from applying for and winning public contracts. In the case of defects, it prevents smaller contracts from having to absorb the full costs of potential defects caused by others.”
“The system is a real barrier to delivering infrastructure for who could be willing to deal with such an archaic and dogmatic system? It really makes no sense. Where possible, the system must allow for certain permits and licences to be applied simultaneously as opposed to consequentially. This would streamline the overall system, promoting efficiency and saving time and money on major infrastructure projects. This amendment seeks to put in place a reporting mechanism to provide an update on the progress within that.”
“I move amendment No. 8: In page 7, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “ Report on permitting process 9 . The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before Dáil Éireann on the feasibility of streamlining permitting processes for large infrastructure projects, so as to identify what permits can be applied for concurrently in order to save time and reduce costs.”. The permitting process, instead of improving in recent years, has only got worse. It can take years to get all of the permits in order, such is the nature of the sequential system of permitting processes that we currently have in place, by which time the costs of procurement have often risen or survey data has aged out of use.”
“Are we going to face even more billions of euros in fines as we fail to meet the commitments we made back in 2015? The deletion of section 7 will not impede the delivery of critical infrastructure. It will simply ensure that public bodies continue to consider climate impacts when exercising their functions under the Act.”
“Before the Houses agree to disapply obligations, the Minister should clearly explain why this step is necessary and what consequences will follow. Has his Department done a risk assessment of those consequences as they pertain to the Paris Agreement? I am particularly concerned about the potential application of this provision to future energy infrastructure projects. It would be helpful if the Minister would clarify whether projects involving fossil fuel infrastructure could benefit from these provisions and how that would sit alongside the State's other climate commitments. As he will know, we are massively failing on those commitments as it stands. I am concerned that we are doing very badly in this area and are already going to miss our targets.”
“Climate legislation should not be a barrier to the delivery of critical infrastructure, as section 7 appears to insinuate. It would be incredibly short-sighted of this Government to ditch section 15 of the climate Act in light of the unintended consequences the Whittaker report warns of such as ignoring judicial review for genuine environmental reasons or to challenge fundamentally flawed planning processes. Stripping away section 15 of the climate Act is a really blunt approach and it will not achieve what Government believes it will. Blocking or restricting access to judicial review is not going to magically open up the Government's ability to deliver on critical infrastructure projects. Section 15 requires public bodies to have regard to climate action plans, carbon budgets and sectoral emissions ceilings.”
“I oppose section 7 in its entirety as it displaces or disapplies our domestic climate legislation and it does not comply with essential functions of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. Why have this Act and why sign up to the Paris Agreement if we are going to ignore our commitments to lowering carbon emissions and keeping global temperatures within safe limits? We are legally bound by the Paris Agreement and yet we are explicitly ignoring it within this Bill. Are we abandoning our climate objectives at this stage? Is the Government abandoning those climate objectives? Critical infrastructure must also include climate-positive projects such as clean, safe drinking water; public transport; and renewable energy expansion, three elements that are of crucial national importance.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 5, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “(5) The Minister shall lay a report before Dáil Éireann on the rationale, criteria, decision making process used to draft the designation order as soon as may be after it is made.”.”
“I know, but that is the implication of it. It is one of our roles as legislators, and that is the way the Oireachtas is set up, to bring experts in, to get expert advice and to spend several hours looking over that with them. It would not take months.”
“On the point on pre-legislative scrutiny, I think in the Standing Orders it is a maximum six or eight weeks. It would not be months and months for pre-legislative scrutiny to take place. It could easily be done, and at the Minister's request it could be expedited to three weeks. I just want to get that clear. Again, when there have been so many enormous projects it is about getting experts in and actually having that opportunity to discuss with them, so that when we are coming in here and introducing amendments they are even more informed and even better. Otherwise, let us get rid of pre-legislative scrutiny altogether in every single Bill if it is about getting things over the line in a timely manner-----”
“It would bring that confidence back into the system for us as legislators and for the public as well by ensuring that designation decisions are evidence based, are transparent and are capable of scrutiny. I do not think this is a huge amount to ask for. If Ministers are confident in their designations and confident in the work they are doing then it really is just a matter of good governance and good parliamentary oversight.”
“In the future there should be clear evidence of steps that were taken to plan for city infrastructure, not a project shrouded in secrecy that future Ministers cannot look back on and learn from. It sets a precedent for a Minister's successors to act with transparency and it covers the Minister should there be any queries or concerns of legitimacy of the prioritisation process as there is a clear report outlining the decision-making process and the origins of that, and in making informed decisions which we can all participate in. This is about strengthening confidence in the process that the Minister is introducing. A lot of confidence has been lost in many ways around the whole delivery of infrastructure in Ireland.”
“On amendment No. 4, it is slightly more modest in its requirements and it is a bit of a fall-back option if, as I assume, amendment No. 2 will not be accepted. It is important to know what projects are designated as critical and what criteria qualify them for this status. Obviously there will be concerns around people prioritising developments - and I am not saying it about this Minister by the way, just to make that very clear - but it is how we decide where priority projects take place, for example. As I said before, there is no shortage of good projects or projects that need to be done. This amendment is really just another option for getting more clarity and transparency. What is equally important here in terms of producing the report is the element of foresight.”
“There needs to be a framework explicitly written into this legislation; a comprehensive statutory framework that outlines which projects are deemed critical and which are not. It cannot simply be at the discretion of one alone. How can we ensure the criteria are here too if there are no statutory guardrails to ensure projects are chosen fairly and will have the most benefit?”