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 8 of 28.
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply. On one particular point, he implied that there would be negative implications for Ireland as a strong member state of Europe and the European Union if we do not ratify this. On Committee Stage at the select committee, the Minister of State said: "If we do not ratify this agreement, the agreement will not happen and it is quite possible the tariff arrangements would be reversed." However, we already know that multiple countries - I read them out before - such as France and Italy are highly unlikely to ratify. There is a sense from the Government that the framing of this Bill is essential to the continuation of the beneficial tariff arrangements set out under CETA but there is no evidence of that. Numerous major countries like France, Italy and Poland have not ratified.”
“This is our last opportunity to have this discussion unless we put in an amendment which allows or enforces the Minister of the day, any future Minister, to come back to the Oireachtas and the committees of the Oireachtas. We should not be diminishing our role as parliamentarians to scrutinise major policy decisions in the future. I will have amendments on this down the line if they have not been ruled out of order. I cannot remember whether they have been ruled out of order. We need to have measures in place to ensure that we, as parliamentarians, or future parliamentarians, will have the opportunity to review the implications of this decision in future trade agreements.”
“This is at a time when we are removing ourselves from the energy charter treaty, ECT, and Canada itself is removing arbitration clauses from its future trade agreements. Under the Bill as it is currently written, we will never have another opportunity to discuss this. We will not have another opportunity to discuss arbitration clauses for future trade agreements because any given Minister at any given time will be able to include them in any future trade agreements. This Bill includes CETA and the Chile trade agreement. Actually, when it comes to ratification of CETA, it is only done in the Dáil. It will not be coming here.”
“Under the Orban regime Hungary was unlikely to ratify. Slovenia, Bulgaria and Cyprus are perhaps a little less likely. To what end are we rushing into this? Pre-legislative scrutiny was waived. I voted against the waiving of pre-legislative scrutiny at the foreign affairs committee. While we have many legislators in this House and in the Dáil with very different backgrounds, we have not heard sufficiently from experts in this field, beyond the ruling of the Supreme Court judges on which there are questions. We are rushing into something that will tie the hands of future governments for future generations for a minimum of 20 years, should we seek to leave it. Should we seek to leave it, it can only be as a collective in the EU.”
“The threat of Vermilion Energy going after the French Government because a potential policy was going to undermine its ability to make money was enough to make the French Government backtrack and instead allow all current exploration and exploitation projects by all companies to continue for another 20 years. That is chilling. To echo one of the points that Senator McDowell made about the zombie clause and the idea that if Ireland implements this and fully ratifies CETA, we will only be able to extract ourselves by leaving the EU, that is tying the hands of any future governments to make any decisions on this issue. That is what this is doing. Going back to the question of why the rush, I point to France, Italy and Belgium. It is highly unlikely in the case of Hungary although there is a new government there.”
“One important case that we should mention is Vermilion, a Canadian oil and gas company that in 2017 produced 75% of France's oil. It lobbied alongside several companies and against progressive French policy which sought to end fossil fuel extraction. We are living in a climate catastrophe so we want to move to renewables. I refer to this idea that a company that produces 75% of a country's oil - in this case, Vermilion and France - could then sue. The mere threat of awards was enough to make the French Government backtrack on its policy.”
“In regard to that piece around inducement to invest, a company may be invited to Ireland under particular investment structures, and is advised that this is the current regulatory framework for the business to come in, so in terms of housing, this is the current framework for this company to come in and make money in Ireland. If we have done outreach and invited companies, they could argue to an investor court that the regulatory environment changed; they were promised one thing and given this inducement to invest on one ground but it changed. That would actually be quite strong grounds for a case in the arbitration court. That could apply on any public policy issue. Going back to that idea that these elements exist, we have the ability, as it stands, for the courts to deal with arbitration cases.”
“If a future government wanted to take serious action on the housing crisis, for example, this Bill could provide a serious threat to its ability to do so. If the State tries to nationalise or seize a particular investment to achieve policy goals, which any future government or this Government if it continues in government could do, and there happens to be a large Canadian investment in that area, what is stopping those investors from going to the ICS system and claiming anti-Canadian discrimination, particularly given the fact that we have provided inducements to invest, as the IDA does as part of its business outreach to bring different companies into Ireland?”
“We know Canadian pension schemes have a huge vested interest in the Irish housing system because many vulture funds bought up a lot of property and are making huge amounts of profit off rents from people in Ireland. The Minister of State gave an extreme example but that is also an admission that if we are changing a policy that affects the bottom line of Canadian companies, they would in fact take the case. A significant volume of student residential accommodation in Ireland is held by institutional investors, including Canadian linked funds. Any future government policy aimed at regulating or acquiring such properties could be exposed to CETA under investor claims if the Bill is enacted.”
“Of course companies are not saying they need to avail of additional mechanisms because we actually have a really well functioning system as it is. It is important to highlight that. The Minister of State went on to say there is not even the remotest possibility under this agreement that companies would seek to use investment protection provisions. Given that we have a whole ream of examples over our recent history of companies taking investment protection provisions against countries, that is not a credible argument. The Minister of State also said if an Irish government were to say it is going to seize all the houses owned by Canadian pension funds at half their value but would not touch any other properties, those funds might, for example, have a claim in an arbitration court or even in the Irish courts or under Irish law.”
“Canadian companies are outside of the Canadian Government so I take issue with the idea that it is remote that any Canadian company would choose to sue Ireland or take an arbitration case based on their bottom lines being impacted, or that it is outside of the reality that we know. There are lists of active cases of companies suing states because their bottom line is being affected. The Minister of State also said that we have no instances so far where any company has suggested that if investment protection provisions were in force they would need to avail of them. That is because of course under the current arbitration mechanisms that exist companies can seek resolution with our national courts and through the European courts.”
“Big companies and multinationals have previously affected progress in public policy through ISDS schemes, which are effectively the same as the ICS scheme and they will have a regulatory chilling effect on progressive public policy. This is what this arbitration Bill and the full ratification of CETA is going to bring us into. I note that the Minister of State said on Committee Stage that Canada has moved on from investor protection clauses in other agreements, yet we are pursuing them here. Canada has moved on. He said that himself. He said the reality is that the possibility of any of us coming before an investor protection system in any substantive way is very remote.”
“The Department has done a lot of work around that with the Beyond Barriers report. At the same time, let us get real: Canadian oil companies do not have a great track record when it comes to human rights and their bottom line is profit. While we can say that Canada is a great trading partner, and the Canadian Government is a good trading partner, that does not extend to individual Canadian companies because we do not have any control over them. They will do what they want that is beneficial to their bottom line. We cannot just say that because little old Ireland has a good working relationship with the Canadian Government that it will somehow insulate us from the impact of potential cases being taken by Canadian companies. That is not what big corporations and big multinationals are about. They are not about doing the decent thing.”
“However, I met with Canadian representatives, notably MPs from Bloc Québécois, who are incredibly concerned about the impacts of arbitration courts on their own systems. As the Minister of State will be aware, given their own experience with the Lone Pine case where US-based energy companies sued Quebec for $250 million in an arbitration claim under NAFTA. That is an unresolved case since 2013 which could see Canada lose more than $100 million. There are major concerns in Canada itself about the impact. It is moving away from arbitration clauses in its own trade agreements with the US. It is doing that now so it kind of beggars belief that we would be seeking to do the opposite. I fundamentally support opening up a trade relationship with Canada, which I think is a positive move.”
“I also met with the Canadian delegation at PACE in Strasbourg. I support the strong trade relationships the Department and the Government are engaging in. I also support the huge amount of work being done on the Canada-Ireland 180 project, which is to mark the incredibly special relationship that we have with Canada from the 100,000 Irish people who landed on Canadian shores in 1847 during the Famine. I recognise that special relationship. I also recognise the importance of diversifying away from the likes of the US, which is not a reliable partner at the moment for a plethora of reasons of which we are all very aware. I am pro trade with Canada. I believe that Canada is a good country for us to engage with in trade.”
“The Minister of State wishes to hand over our policy-making sovereignty to investor courts. We are effectively handing over compensation claims to outside investor courts to decide. That is a terrifying thought. We are handing that power to outside investor courts. They do not need to be based in Ireland at all. We are bypassing our own national courts system and the ECJ. We have a functioning system that can deal with these things. It is already dealing with arbitration claims that might come up in the existing trade and investor system that we have. They already exist. There is no need to introduce this other element. It is crazy stuff. I cannot tell if it is wilful ignorance or naivety. I travelled to Canada in December last year as part of the foreign affairs committee trade delegation.”
“That is one argument that is made around sovereignty in the UN Security Council, yet at the same time we are handing over our policy-making sovereignty to investor courts. We are allowing companies to be able-----”
“This is a huge part of that. Again, when we ask why are we pushing this deregulation agenda through under the guise of competition, I always wonder who we are competing with. Who are we trying to compete against? Who do we hope to compete against by lowering our human rights standards or our environmental standards? I have a suspicion that it is China. That is quite a scary concept because then we are trying to lower our operational and procedural standards to compete with China - a country that has vast human rights violations in its supply chains. It is a scary thought that we are on a race to the bottom on human rights and environmental regulations. Ironically as well, we often hear from this Government, and from the Minister of State, that we need to safeguard the triple lock because it is undermining our sovereignty.”
“CETA and the associated joint interpretive documents provide no meaningful concrete safeguards about how countries like Ireland can push back against companies. The fundamental issue is that the fundamental priority of ICS arbitrations is compensation claims. They are not looking at the balancing of different pieces of legislation in the way a national court would. When our High Court is looking at cases, it takes the wider legislative framing and balances that with public interest issues. However, according to this Bill, the High Court is only going to be looking at interests relating to the Constitution, which is actually incredibly limited. We will not see the different aspects of legislation being looked at in the ICS arbitration courts. We have seen a marked EU-wide shift towards a deregulatory agenda under the guise of competition.”
“That claim was worth over €2 billion. It is nonsensical to do this at the same time as we are having this discussion. We are having this discussion while the Government is withdrawing from the ECT. Ireland is massively exposed by the arbitration clauses because of high levels of FDI in our economy, which we have ironically been able to attract without having these arbitration clauses. Companies have come and invested in Ireland without investor court systems and arbitration clauses. We have this favourable environment already so why would we be pursuing risks to our own public policy? ICS courts are effectively a repackaging of ISDS. I know the Minister of State might say the opposite, but that is what they are. It is just a reframing of the ISDS system, which has been strongly condemned.”
“It is like a through-the-looking-glass moment because we are having this debate at the same time as the Government just announced Ireland's withdrawal from the energy charter treaty to avoid risks of arbitration. We have withdrawn from the ECT because of risks of arbitration - or we are in the process of withdrawal - and at the same time we are introducing a new mechanism which will have the same impact. This is actively attempting to ratify a new agreement which is going to impose additional challenges to our sovereignty. Under the ECT we saw companies sue EU member states for millions when they tried to move away from fossil fuels, one example being Uniper, a German energy company that utilised the energy charter treaty to challenge the Netherlands 2030 coal phase-out, claiming damages for stranded assets.”
“That does lead us to wonder why we are rushing into something that is going to have such a fundamental negative impact on Ireland and Irish sovereignty when it comes to public policy decision-making. That is what this will endeavour to do. This Bill is not about improving trade for Irish companies because, as has been said, the trade is there and the trade provisions are already active. What this Bill is doing is totally unnecessarily exposing us to the risk of being sued by foreign investors for actions that are perceived as negatively impacting their investments. That will have an absolutely chilling regulatory impact on public policy and decision-making. We have seen that before. Human rights groups and academics have already talked at length about how investor courts have a regulatory chilling impact.”
“I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. That is much appreciated. Senator McDowell touched on so many important points. I was struck by his analogy about the noose and the platform we are standing on, and the lever that any company can choose to pull should they want to take a case against Ireland. It is incredibly evocative and very much sums up the precipice on which we are sitting. He also asked the questions of why now, why we are rushing and what is the motivation behind this. As the Minister of State acknowledged on Committee Stage in the Dáil, CETA is already largely in effect - 99% of the trade elements of CETA are already in effect - with an increase from €3.2 billion worth of trade in 2016 to €10 billion worth of trade in 2023.”
“I note that I received notification of amendments being out of order six minutes in advance of the debate, which obviously is a really tight timeline. That is just something to note. I know that is nothing to do with the Minister of State but it relates to the Seanad Office. Learning of it just six minutes before the debate makes it very difficult for Senators to plan their speaking notes.”
“They do not limit the Garda or the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, from seeking counselling notes. They do not strengthen protections around disclosures and, crucially, survivors are still required to hand over deeply personal counselling notes to legal teams, including the accused and defence teams. I am very concerned that what was put forward does not answer that.”
“I welcome that the Minister is committed to implementing the majority report. I will ask him about the minority report's recommendation around the threshold that is currently €18,000 for eligibility and that it be moved up to €30,000, given that it has not been increased since 2006. That specific part of the minority report is crucial in regard to the way that coercive control and financial abuse is used in domestic violence situations. When we talk about access to justice, legal aid is a core component of that but so are stronger protections within the judicial process. What are the Minister's thoughts on the disclosure in regard to the counselling notes piece? I know he was discussing it at the justice committee yesterday. I am concerned that the amendments to section 19A do not go far enough.”
“It also includes that Legal Aid Board solicitors should be paid at the same rates as Civil Service lawyers, in bodies such as the Chief State Solicitor's office. The report further recommended a reorientation of civil legal aid services towards targeted, early and preventative services. It notes that disadvantaged individuals from marginalised communities are particularly vulnerable when it comes to domestic violence. They need early legal advice and advocacy where they are located in their communities. This particularly relates to people from rural backgrounds.”
“It is crucial that the training also includes an understanding of economic violence, namely, how perpetrators might be exploiting the lower threshold for assessing legal aid to drag the victim-survivor through endless court cycles of expensive litigation as a means of maintaining control in post-separation abuse cases. There is a lot of research to show that perpetrators use this as a tool time and again. Is the DSGBV training mandatory for all legal aid lawyers working for the Legal Aid Board? That would be great to hear. What action has been take on the implementation of the actions from the two reviews from last year? The minority report also emphasises the socioeconomic return on investment in legal aid. It adds that the Legal Aid Board must be sufficiently resourced to carry out the transformation envisaged by the review.”
“It is vital that we ensure sufficient staffing of the Legal Aid Board and affiliated solicitors, as well as adequate training of the legal aid solicitors on violence against women. This was a key recommendation from the Council of Europe's group of experts responsible for monitoring Ireland's compliance with the Istanbul Convention on preventing violence against women. I note the very positive work being done under the zero tolerance strategy in regards to legal aid staff completing domestic violence awareness CPD training. That is really important.”
“Both reports that arose from the independent review of the civil legal aid scheme last year identified the urgent need to raise the threshold and associated allowances, including that the accommodation allowance be deducted from the income assessment, to reflect the rising costs of accommodation. The minority report published under the legal aid review recommended that the income threshold be raised from the current figure of €18,000 to €30,000. Moreover, it called for the complete removal of the means test in cases of domestic violence. It has been a year since the Minister received the reports from the legal aid review. I ask him to provide an update on the progress to implement those recommendations, particularly pertaining to the raising of the financial eligibility threshold.”
“Access to free legal aid is vital in cases of domestic violence involving financial abuse, as victim-survivors may not have access to their own finances to pay for legal services. The income threshold for the scheme is woefully out of date, having not been updated since 2006. This greatly reduces the proportion of people who will qualify for legal aid. The threshold needs to be raised urgently to account for inflation. Many people in dire need, including domestic violence survivors, are effectively locked out of our legal aid system, as the threshold is 20 years out of date and does not reflect the cost of living in today's society.”
“A core problem is the rigid and out-of-date means testing scheme. The means test is a barrier to accessing legal aid and is, therefore, a barrier to justice for survivors of domestic violence, as is the financial contribution requirement. Domestic violence survivors may need to make repeated applications for legal aid. That is repeated financial contributions, which puts a huge strain on them financially. It is crucial that we understand how financial abuse is often used as a factor in domestic violence cases, further restricting women's ability to access that legal aid. Some women may be deemed ineligible for legal aid because of joint assets, over which in reality they have no control.”
“I thank the Minister for coming in. We do not often get the appropriate line Minister so we are grateful for having him here. I raise the issue of civil legal aid and how the system is currently failing survivors of domestic violence. We know that legal aid for victims and survivors of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, DSGBV, is overstretched, under-resourced and not meeting demand. In 2024, the Free Legal Advice Centres's phone lines received a record high number of queries in relation to domestic violence. This is a clear indication of the growing, unmet legal need in this area. We have heard stark statements about the state of our civil legal aid scheme, which is in crisis and on the brink of collapse due to chronic underfunding and under-resourcing. The civil legal aid scheme is failing to meet that legal need.”
“I want to lend my support to these amendments. For too long, families, victims and survivors of the Troubles have not received answers and have not received transparency around what happened to their loved ones, and this has often been under the guise of security reasons. We are so many years on now from these awful tragedies. Remaining family members, especially those fathers and mothers who lost children and are in their twilight years, deserve accountability and they deserve justice while they are still alive. We cannot keep harking back to the days of old where vague obfuscation was provided for why justice and answers could not brought to the victims.”
“In the wider context of traditional justice and legacy issues relating to the Troubles, many victims feel they have been let down by successive Irish governments. We heard that in January this year when victims campaigner Raymond McCord came to the Good Friday Agreement implementation committee and described the lack of confidence in the Irish Government to deliver truth, justice and transparency and to give some families some potential closure. At 28 years post the Good Friday Agreement, we cannot allow this to continue. Again, there is a call for assurances that we can provide to the families of the Omagh bombings, as well as that piece around the provision of oral evidence and how that can be assured.”
“I thank the Minister of State and Senator Clonan. While the Senator's amendment on the issue of compulsion and the ability to compel witnesses was ruled out of order, I want to talk around that issue and then on to section 2. I refer to the rationale for consent provision and the legal constraints. The Minister stated on Second Stage that he strongly expects those people whom the inquiry wants to call to give evidence will co-operate and come forward. However, that still rests on the basis and expectation that people will do that. While the amendment was ruled out of order, what concrete assurances are there within this Bill that we can give victims' families regarding the truth and accountability they so deserve?”
“I note the issue of the disclosure of counselling notes. It is an archaic and misogynistic practice and is preventing people from seeking justice. It is preventing a culture of proper accountability for survivors. The idea of people's deeply personal counselling notes being shared and used against them is horrifying. None of us would want to be in that position. When we talk about gender-based and domestic violence, we often talk about protection and response but not about prevention. A critical element of that is how we stamp out misogynistic culture in our society. It goes back to online safety and creating an online space that is positive and productive. We can take young people offline altogether, but at the age of 16 they will go back online and the space will still be incredibly toxic.”
“The only other pathway is social housing, but we know the social housing lists are incredibly long. We need to think about how we can integrate the needs and experiences of survivors into housing policy. That is not within the Minister's remit but the challenge with a response to domestic violence is that it is cross-departmental. I would also like us to consider what provisions we can make to remove perpetrators from the home. This discussion of housing and refuge comes from the challenge that survivors - victims and their children - are often the ones who leave the home while the perpetrator stays there. I know there will be legal questions about that in terms of court cases and being innocent before being proved guilty, but we need to explore that area, particularly with the housing crisis we are facing.”
“What we increasingly hear from front-line organisations in the sector is that while more refuge space is necessary, particularly in places where there is no refuge, it is not the only answer. Refuge is a temporary emergency measure. What survivors desperately need are long-term solutions. We have a chronic shortage of safe, affordable and long-term housing options, which limits survivors' pathways out of refuge. It constrains the already stretched capacity of many of our refuges. The limited housing options see survivors facing difficult questions about rebuilding their lives. The lack of affordable private rental accommodation compounds that challenge. You might get the housing assistance payment, HAP, but we know people struggle to get properties covered by HAP.”
“I thank the Minister and the Fianna Fáil Senators for giving us the opportunity to have this important discussion. It is urgent and we need that collective and cross-departmental approach. I know Cuan sits under the Minister but this has many different facets. I also note the positive engagement of the Minister, Deputy Calleary, with me on the free travel scheme. I recognise the importance of working across the floor on that. It also highlights that holistic piece in that it does not just sit under justice but many other areas. We still see record levels of domestic violence and that is trending upwards, concerningly. The Government's commitment to the delivery of safe accommodation is welcome. However, even the target of doubling refuge spaces by the end of this year sees us falling substantially short of the Istanbul Convention.”
“I have been particularly concerned about how civil society metrics across many member states are declining. The engagement of civil society is declining and, as I have said before, that engagement is a core pillar of a well-functioning, healthy democracy. We need to explore how we can champion it going forward.”
“That includes safety standards around chemicals, financial security processes, human rights and protections on the environment - all transformative for who we are as citizens in Europe. Irish citizens and every other European citizen have received those benefits. The current trajectory coming from the Commission is deregulation, slash and burn and removing those hard-won rights. When we say that we are Europe, we should be horrified by that. This is a genuinely worrying trend. When we consider future generations, what it means to be European and all the good things about Europe, we note that the current trajectory and trend of the Commission are at odds with them. They are at odds with the values of human rights, the rule of law and democracy.”
“What is Ireland going to do under the EU Presidency to uphold the role of civil society within this context? Corporate influence is being formalised, civil society engagement is being sidelined and we are seeing a slash-and-burn approach to human rights regulations originally designed to protect us as citizens. Disappointingly, the concerns I have outlined are not remotely reflected in the Government analysis of where we stand with Europe. The Minister of State spoke about Europe never being more tested and never being more necessary. I agree. I am a proud European but the challenge in Europe now is that so many hard-won gains are being removed with little democratic process. We heard from other Senators about all of the good things Europe has brought us.”
“I would like to know what the Government is going to do, if anything, during the Presidency to slow down the tide of the nine more omnibus packages coming down the line from the Commission. These omnibus packages, let there be no doubt, are about reducing hard-won regulations to protect European citizens. In recent years in Brussels, new channels have been put in place that privilege corporate access to EU policymaking and the icing out of civil society from any meaningful participation. This is a bad shift particularly when healthy civil society engagement is a core pillar of a well-functioning democracy. It is a pillar of good democracy. In our overseas aid work, we expect third countries we work with to have good civil society engagement and dialogue with their policymakers, yet we see that being weakened in Europe.”
“We heard from the Minister of State responsible for AI a few months ago in the Chamber that she is not interested in halting this process. This will make protections for children online worse. That is what the digital omnibus will do. It will strip back hard-won rights and make us all less safe online. Given everything that has happened with Grok, I cannot believe we will support this. I was similarly appalled by the vote on the Omnibus I package last November on removing hard-won rights under the corporate sustainability due diligence directive. It was effectively completely torn up. The omnibus was voted through. Notably, for the first time in history, the EPP, of which Fine Gael MEPs are members, voted with the far right, a commitment which has historically been a red line for the European Parliament. It is very disappointing.”
“We heard from other Senators about the importance of holding third countries like China to account for their human rights standards. Who are we competing against? What is the competitiveness for? What standards are we hoping to lower to make ourselves more competitive and with whom? I hope it is not China. That is not a race I want us to participate in when we know about the labour abuses and exploitation in China. We heard from the Taoiseach in Washington DC this year that the Government is committed to innovation over regulation, a statement he made a few short weeks after we were all reeling from the Grok deepfake scandal. The EU's upcoming omnibus packages will see digital protections further weakened. We need a commitment from this Government to use the EU Presidency as a time to halt this process.”
“We have seen human rights and environmental protections framed as obstacles in Europe to be overcome and framed as inefficiencies and red tape. However, regulation is there to protect people and the planet. I think the Minister of State said we are Europe and the institutions protect us. I 100% agree with that sentiment but then why are we trying to strip back the regulations in place to protect us as Europeans, and to protect the institutions and the planet? Regulations are there to ensure rights are non-negotiable. I am disappointed the Government is parroting the Commission's language on competitiveness. It always makes me wonder - who are we competing against? Is it a race to the bottom on human rights and environmental standards with China? Is that our aim?”
“We have the opportunity with the EU Presidency to make our commitments to international law and human rights the focus of the EU's agenda at a time when that is slipping. Will the Department commit to that today? I have only heard vague references to values on the agenda for the Presidency. I have not specifically heard about international law and human rights. Values can be open to interpretation. We have seen a clear shift in EU policymaking. Competitiveness is the phrase of the day. It is being operationalised to narrow corporate obligations on human rights and the environment with weaker accountability mechanisms. For Ireland's Presidency, the Government has chosen to use the language of competitiveness in its aims and ambitions which is a synonym for deregulation in Europe.”
“Ireland is seeking to take a seat on the UN Human Rights Council later this year, while at the same time exploring ways to lower principles on universal standards of human rights when it comes to degrading treatment and torture. That is obscene and ridiculous. I wonder why Ireland is seeking to chip away at the strong and coherent systems we have on human rights at a time when human rights and multilateralism are being eroded. We constantly hear rhetoric from this Government about how international law is so important and crucial, yet the actions we are seeing undermine the frameworks of those human rights standards. Signing up to attempts to remove the concept of universality of human rights is a horrifying trend.”
“That Article relates to degrading and inhumane treatment and torture. That we would seek to revise those standards sets a deeply problematic precedent from this Government. I have tried on two separate occasions to put this question to the Minister for foreign affairs during Commencement matters and to hear directly from the Department about Ireland's position in relation to the ECHR. Unfortunately, the Minister was not able to come to the Chamber either time. I had hoped to have the opportunity today to raise it with the Department. This is no reflection on the Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer. We are grateful that he has systematically come for things outside his brief. I respect that he spent two terms in the Seanad and understands how important it is for us, but it is disappointing not to have had that chance to day.”