Sharon Keogan
Industrial and Commercial Panel · Independent · Ireland
“The future of European border security is being decided right row at the European Commission. It is currently drafting the renewed mandate of Frontex, the EU border police force. As Ireland holds the rotating EU Presidency, the Minister for justice cannot simply pose as a disinterested broker while our European borders are compromised.”
“Holding the EU Presidency gives this Government massive agenda-setting leverage at the Council of Ministers. The Minister must use this chairing power to strip out counterproductive rights promotion provisions. Under the guise of good intentions, these provisions and their enforcers have defanged and undermined Frontex.”
“I thank the Minister, Deputy Calleary, and I appreciate that he will engage with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, on this. We live in the land of technology.”
“The Minister, Deputy Calleary, is welcome to the House. I rise to focus the attention of the House on a vital public service that sits at the very heart of social inclusion on this island, the free travel scheme.”
“Sitting down with Stormont to deliver a single unified rule book for free travel means we lift everyone to the same high standards of dignity and mobility, ensuring that a person's vulnerability is not penalised simply because of the jurisdiction they happen to live in.”
“It will point to the senior pass scheme, where a resident here can apply for a separate concessionary card to travel into the North. Let us be completely honest with ourselves.”
The complete record
Every one of 772 lines we hold for Sharon Keogan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 16.
“The phrase, "in so far as is reasonably practicable", contained in the proposed subsection (1) acts as a vital common-sense safety valve. It ensures that neither Tusla nor the applicant is forced to achieve the impossible. It means that while the readily available maternal grandmother, aunts or local adult siblings must be actively informed, the system will not be held up or paralysed by a mandatory hunt for a distant cousin who lives overseas and has no relationship with the child. Furthermore, the proposed subsection (5) places the ultimate discretion squarely where it belongs, that is, with the judge. The court must simply be satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken.”
“If many of them were informed in that letter that they have or may have a right to apply for guardianship, where that is the case then the State would find, more often than we think, a willing guardian. This is something which would not only relieve the strain on our social services but would very often find a more organic and healthy environment for the child concerned. As I believe similar amendments to mine were tabled during the Dáil debates on this Bill and were rejected partly on the grounds that no definition of family was provided, in this amendment I have provided one. Before anyone argues this list of relatives is too exhaustive and will clog up the system with endless administration, let me point out the countermeasure.”
“It is very easy to imagine a man or woman who is aware they have a nephew or niece who is to be without a guardian, either because their parents have passed away or are in fact unfit to be guardians, and that man or women does nothing because he or she has no idea he or she might be entitled to apply for guardianship of that child or even to weigh in that child's guardianship proceedings. By ensuring that if any person were to receive a letter informing them of the situation of their nephew, niece, grandchild or so on, many of them would, at a minimum, get involved in the proceedings and give the court a broader perspective on the child's welfare.”
“This is because, put simply, it is all very well that an aunt or sibling of a child who finds themselves without a guardian can apply for guardianship according to the letter of the law. It is another matter to ensure the family member knows he or she can apply for guardianship. The simple fact is that a substantial number of people in this country never take advantage of their rights because they are simply not aware of them. This amendment seeks to rectify that.”
“While I had initially considered a system for the notification of relatives only in the cases outlined in the Bill, I believe it is better to add in a broader umbrella amendment that would cover the cases outlined in the Bill because cases such as murder of one spouse by another will not be the only cases in which a child will be left without a guardian. Only adding a family notification requirement for cases outlined under Valerie's law would create an inequality between cases. I recognise the 1964 Act contains numerous provisions to allow for a family to apply for guardianship. The aim of this amendment is to make a relatively simple, but I believe quite fundamental, shift to an overall structure of guardianship law, which is to shift from passive to active family rights.”
“Before I go any further, if the Leas-Chathaoirleach will permit, I would like to take a moment to recognise and praise the Trojan work done by David French and his family, again here today, and that of the Minister in bringing this legislation before us today. We should count ourselves lucky if, God forbid, we were to fall victim to such horrific circumstances as his sister Valerie and her children, that we should have siblings so dedicated to set things right. He has truly honoured his late sister's legacy and set an example of strength and power of familial love. My first amendment seeks to create a system for notification of relatives in guardianship proceedings. This amendment seeks to change the principal guardianship Act of 1964 directly.”
“(5) Before making a final order restricting or removing guardianship, or making alternative long-term care arrangements for a child under subsection (1)(b), the court must be satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to comply with the notification requirements of this section.”. I rise today to find myself with the task of speaking on all my amendments at once; whether that is good or bad fortune I will allow the House to decide. It is certainly more efficient in a sense, and certainly appropriate as all my amendments are linked by common aims, namely, to check the role of the family and care agency, or Tusla, as we commonly know it, as the effective gatekeeper in the legislation, and to strengthen the role of other voices, particularly of the family and kin.”
“Notwithstanding any enactment relating to the non-disclosure of information, such bodies may provide to the court, or to the Child and Family Agency, such limited and proportionate information as is strictly necessary to facilitate notification under this section, ensuring that any data processing complies with the principles of data protection law. (4) Any relative notified under this section, or any relative who otherwise becomes aware of the situation or proceedings, shall have the right to apply to the court to be joined as a notice party and to make submissions in relation to the welfare, custody, or guardianship of the child.”
“(2) For the purposes of this section, and sections 12C, 12D, and 12DA, ‘relative’ means a person related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity and includes— (a) an adult sibling of the child, (b) a grandparent of the child, (c) an aunt or uncle of the child, (d) a great-aunt or great-uncle of the child, (e) an adult first cousin of the child, and includes any other person who, in the opinion of the court, has a significant and ongoing familial relationship with the child. (3) An applicant or the Child and Family Agency may request the assistance of An Garda Síochána, the General Register Office, or any other relevant public body to confirm the identity or contact details of relatives identified under subsection (2).”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 4, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “Provision for notification of relatives in guardianship proceedings 12BA. (1) Where— (a) an application is made to the court under this Act for the restriction or removal of the guardianship of any person, or (b) it becomes apparent that a child is to be left without any guardian, or with guardians who are unwilling or unable to act, the applicant in the case of paragraph (a), or the Child and Family Agency in the case of paragraph (b), shall, in so far as is reasonably practicable, take active steps to identify and notify relatives of the child concerned.”
“Straightforward laws should derive from common sense and respect for human dignity. This Bill does neither. It blurs lines that should be treated with the utmost care. I urge the House to reject this cynical conflation and to protect the distinct, sacred nature of bereavement support.”
“A miscarriage is a tragic, unchosen bereavement. It leaves families shattered and our laws absolutely should offer them distinct compassionate support. Instead of protecting the unique nature of that grief, however, the Government has folded abortion provisions into the text. Rather than acting as a mature check on this extreme position, we see the Labour Party chide the Minister from the sidelines, not for blurring these moral lines but simply for not doing this fast enough. What we are witnessing is an echo chamber where the Government and the Opposition egg each other on into increasingly extreme positions. They are using the raw, universally understood pain of pregnancy loss as an emotional shield to normalise the State-subsidised ending of unborn life under the guise of workplace wellness.”
“I rise today to express my deep alarm at the legislative direction being pursued by this Government regarding reproductive leave and the eager applause it has received from the Opposition, including the Labour Party. While this conversation touches on areas of genuine human heartbreak, we are witnessing a highly cynical bipartisan race to the edge that completely abandons common sense. The primary responsibility of this misdirection lies squarely with the Government. In its rushed reported proposals it has chosen to intentionally intertwine two completely different human realities: the profound, devastating grief of a natural miscarriage and the provision of paid leave explicitly encompassing elective abortions. To place these on the exact same statutory footing is profoundly insensitive to grieving families.”
“This is not about individual social workers either, who often work under immense pressure but it raises a legitimate question: is it appropriate to place such a high level of discretion in a single agency without additional safeguards, balance or alternative pathways? If the intention is that these serious concerns should come before the courts, then we should be cautious about a system where the outcome depends entirely on an internal decision within Tusla. For that reason, I intend to table amendments on Committee Stage to look at these issues. If we are serious about protecting children, the system must be robust not only in principle but in practice. We must ensure no single point of failure can prevent the law operating as intended.”
“We have seen, for example, the murder of the poor Ukrainian boy under Tusla care and the case in Citywest where the ten-year-old victim of the alleged sexual assault had been missing from Tusla supervision for over 24 hours. We have seen repeated judicial criticisms and findings that Tusla failed to comply with hundreds of court directions affecting hundreds of children. A High Court description of its approach to court orders is "wholly unsatisfactory". A District Court found its conduct was "shocking and appalling", including cases where children were left without allocated social workers, despite court orders. These are not abstract concerns; these are findings from our courts about the performance of the body to which the Bill assigns decisive gatekeeping power.”
“The safeguards in the Bill are important but there is room to further ground the legislation in proportionality and to check its constitutionality, ensuring we protect children while still recognising the enduring nature of that relationship. Third is the role of Tusla. As drafted, Tusla is effectively the gatekeeper. The process begins only if the agency acts. In some cases, it depends on a reasonable cause threshold; in others, it is simply that the agency considers it appropriate. If Tusla does not act, the legislation is never triggered. That is a significant concentration of power and must be viewed in light of current realities. Public confidence in Tusla is not where it needs to be. That is reflected in a number of serious, well-documented cases.”
“That is understandable but even in the most extreme cases the individual remains the parent of the child. A criminal conviction does not dissolve that relationship. It does not dissolve the unconditional love that child has for that parent, despite the most heinous crime that parent may have done. Our constitutional framework treats the parent-child relationship with particular weight. We are not simply removing administrative rights; we are intervening in one of the most fundamental legal relationships we recognise. In some cases, circumstances may change, convictions may be overturned and children as they grow may form their own views about contact.”
“Under this Bill, even where a child is being cared for by grandparents or close relatives, those carers cannot initiate or trigger an application for guardianship. It appears they are entirely dependent on Tusla choosing to act. This means the people most directly responsible for the child's day-to-day welfare will often have no formal role in the legal process governing the child's future. That creates a clear disconnect. I would like to see greater support for kinship care. Law should reflect it not by displacing the State but by recognising that those closest to the child may have a legitimate role in protecting them. There is scope to consider a more balanced model that allows some structured role for family members. Second is the constitutional dimension. The Bill allows for restriction and, in some cases, removal of guardianship.”
“The Minister is welcome to the Chamber. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I approach the Bill with a great degree of caution and circumspection, as it warrants. I have substantial personal experience in helping children from troubled homes and situations. I recognise the great difficulty and complexity that comes with such issues, especially in how we legislate on them. In this case, there are a number of tensions that merit consideration as it progresses to Committee Stage. First is the role of the wider family, particularly kinship care. As a State, we should look to models that recognise children are best supported, where possible, within their extended family networks. Grandparents and relatives often provide stability in the most difficult cases.”
“Currently, if a legal case is taken against a local authority or a member of a local authority, particularly with a local authority, their legal fees are paid but the fines in relation to that case must be met by the local authority or the public body. Our system is unclear, inconsistent and exposed. That must change and we must begin that work today. I just want to alert all representatives to this. It is a serious issue and the loophole needs to be closed.”
“What is needed is a serious and structured conversation with the Minister about solutions. These may include a dedicated insurance product available to all elected representatives or a State-backed framework to support representatives acting in good faith within their role. At present, we have a patchwork system. That is evidenced by the fact that, even today, I could not find a central database on how much money the State has lost in legal actions from outside bodies regarding fines. Local authorities can be fined by outside bodies. A lot of people may not be aware of this issues but it is important for all elected representatives.”
“If exposure to liability becomes too great, we risk politics, even local politics, becoming a rich man's game, where only those with the financial means to absorb that risk are willing to serve. In cases where the consequences of a mistake can be so severe, we risk something even more troubling - creating a situation where, if a representative finds themself already in breach of one rule, the incentive to fully comply going forward is weakened. Of course, we must acknowledge limits. We cannot protect against everything, nor should we. There must be accountability where wrongdoing occurs. Otherwise, what is the point of fines or legal consequences? However, just because an issue is complex does not mean we should avoid it. It means that we should be willing to go in and bring clarity where confusion currently exists.”
“The reality is that the job of a public representative is, by its very nature, highly blurred, confused and often opaque. Representatives deal daily with sensitive personal issues such as housing, welfare and planning, often on the basis of incomplete information and under significant time pressure. They are expected to navigate complex legal frameworks, including data protection law, without the benefit of legal training or consistent clarity. Without addressing this gap, we face a real danger. We risk chilling or even paralysing representatives from doing their job in advocating, intervening and assisting constituents for fear that one mistake could result in serious personal legal and financial consequences. There is also a deeper issue.”
“I would like to reference a case we heard of over the weekend where an elected representative faces personal legal exposure arising from what was described as a routine constituency representation. I will not go into the specifics, but I highlight it because whatever the outcome of that specific case, it broadens the discussion to a more structural problem that we cannot ignore. Put simply, we have a situation where institutions are protected from certain legal actions but elected individuals are not. Local authorities have insurance and legal backing. County councillors have insurance for statutory roles, but not representational roles. The councillor or TD may be left personally exposed, even when they believe that they are acting in good faith. I do not believe that is in the public interest.”
“With targeted refinement, particularly in relation to speech provisions, it can do that more effectively. I support the Bill, but I also support improving it.”
“For better or for worse, the War of Independence, the Civil War and the Troubles are not pieces of dead history. They are, for better or worse, living parts of our society and culture. That makes the Irish context unique and it requires careful drafting when it comes to provisions dealing with speech, expression and historical memory. I will not belabour the point, but I believe that the specific provision should be revisited. I would be open to amendments that narrow its scope and provide clearer safeguards, and I encourage the Government to engage constructively with the Opposition on this matter. The Bill is necessary. It enhances our ability to respond to modern terrorism, aligns us with international partners and addresses real and evolving threats. Like all legislation in this area, however, it must strike the right balance.”
“Specifically, I am speaking of the addition to the principal Act which states that if a person shares content that glorifies a terrorist activity, including by praise or celebration, that person will be found to have provoked the commission of a terrorist offence. Overall, I am very supportive of this Bill, but it seems negligent on the part of the Government to proceed to push through this clause despite the heavy debate to which it was subjected and scrutiny it came under in the Dáil. Also, it seems downright reckless to bring this into the Irish political context. It may sound a little facetious, but could singing "Seán South of Garryowen" qualify under this clause? The latter is an important question that the Government should have asked itself.”
“These are exactly the kinds of indirect and preparatory actions that characterise modern terrorism structures. By targeting them, we move from a purely reactive model to a preventive one. This Bill will also bring Ireland into alignment with wider European standards. This is critical. Terrorism is not a domestic problem alone; it is an international one. Co-operation, intelligence sharing and legal compatibility with our partners are essential if we are to respond effectively. Supporting this Bill does not mean ignoring its flaws, however. Before I finish, I feel obliged to address one part of the Bill, the so-called Kneecap clause.”
“This brings me to a related point, namely the need for better visibility and understanding of ideological networks operating within the State. Concerns have been raised about the presence and influence of movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood through a range of associated organisations. This is not a question of religion; it is a question of transparency, governance and whether the State has the tools and information necessary to understand what is operating within its jurisdiction. In that context, this Bill is a step in the right direction. It strengthens our legal framework in several important ways. It criminalises travel for the purpose of terrorism, the provision and receipt of training, and the facilitation of these activities.”
“There is evidence, both anecdotal and factual, suggesting that extremist networks view Ireland as a softer environment in which they can operate compared with our European neighbours. The ability to move between jurisdictions, particularly across the island, combined with the limited visibility into certain networks presents a real vulnerability. We have seen worrying incidents in recent years, namely attacks on members of An Garda Síochána, assaults motivated by extremist ideologies and threats against places of worship. These are not isolated events. They point to a broader pattern that deserves serious attention. In parallel, there have been warnings from analysts and international observers about the activity of extremist-linked networks in Ireland, including those operating indirectly through affiliated or front organisations.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit ar an tráthnóna breá seo. I felt I had to say something in Irish after hearing the beautiful Irish of Senator Kelleher. I broadly support the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill. This is necessary and timely legislation. The nature of terrorism has changed dramatically in recent years. It is no longer confined to organised groups operating in defined territories. It is decentralised, digital, international and often embedded within networks that operate across borders, across jurisdictions and, in some cases, behind layers of plausible deniability. Ireland cannot afford to be behind the curve on this issue. There are growing concerns that we are seen to be unprepared.”
“Families are still waiting for answers as to how such a tragedy could occur. Multiple investigations remain ongoing, with calls for a full public inquiry continuing to this day. The Government should be absolutely ashamed of how those affected by this appalling tragedy have been handled. These families and their communities deserve a long-term, visible and properly resourced response. What they got instead was a Band-Aid. That is not good enough. I demand accountability from this Government.”
“I heard that the counselling services provided in the community were minimal. People indicated that a single counsellor was made available in a local chemist shop to provide therapy and that individuals had to queue on the street for access. The service was effectively only advertised online. Many people were not even aware of it. More worryingly, the supports provided were temporary in nature. We know that the initial drop-in counselling service was withdrawn after one month. In many cases, people were left with no option but to pay out of their own pockets for ongoing therapy. Even now, concerns remain about the longer term availability of counselling, with services under serious strain. This is simply unacceptable. There are also serious and unanswered questions about the level of oversight and regulation prior to this incident.”
“I congratulate the new Leader. I welcome Laura, Daniel and Jamie, his father and his siblings, to the Gallery. He will do a great job in the future. I wish to raise the issue of the handling of the aftermath of the Creeslough tragedy, which, I believe, warrants serious examination by this House. Last week, I attended a meeting in the audiovisual room at which I heard directly from victims' families. What they had to say was, quite frankly, appalling and compels me to speak not just about the tragedy itself but also about how those affected have been treated in the years since. As we know, ten people, including three children, lost their lives in that devastating explosion in October 2022. Beyond the immediate loss, what followed has in many respects compounded the trauma experienced by those left behind.”
“We all know that when we owe the Revenue Commissioners, be it in life or in death, the payment is taken. Maybe the Minister could take my remarks on board and maybe we could have a complete tax exemption that includes carers.”
“I thank the Minister for engaging with me on this issue. He stated that only 18,000 are affected, but informing people is not the same as designing a system that works for them. The system should not depend on whether a citizen happens to understand the technical distinction between reported and non-reported payments. Where the State can take care of this issue, it should. It is as simple as that. These payments are complex, and the complexity is being pushed onto the citizen, which is neither acceptable nor efficient. A burden of complex administration is being taken from the Civil Service, which is best able to handle it, and put onto the citizen, who is less equipped to understand the matter. That will only result in more time and resources being spent on correcting errors.”
“Accordingly, I am asking the Minister to set out whether the Government intends to move to a universal model of automatic reporting on all taxable Department of Social Protection payments, and if not, to explain why a reform that is so practical, achievable and necessary has not yet been implemented, or if it will maybe make all these payments tax-exempt.”
“That should be the default systematic assumption, not something that depends on the type of scheme or when it was introduced. Instead, what we have is a patchwork system. Payments have been added here and there over time, often in response to issues as they arose, rather than designed from the outset as part of a coherent whole. To be fair, let us focus on the positives. Ireland overall has very good tax systems compared with many other countries. It is efficient, relatively simple, and operates in real time. The Revenue Commissioners are probably the best arm of the State. It is precisely because of that strength that we should be aiming higher. Where gaps exist, particularly gaps that affect ordinary people in their day-to-day lives, we should be closing them, and this is one of those gaps.”
“They are the people least equipped to navigate a complex tax system and they are the ones most exposed to its gaps, which brings me to the central point. This is the modern digital age. We have a PAYE system that operates in real time across the vast majority of incomes. Public bodies share data seamlessly. The State already has the mechanism in place, as shown by the many Department of Social Protection payments that are already integrated. Why are we not joining the dots? I have to say "Well done" to the Government for adding the carer's benefit and allowance to the automatic reporting system, but it is a bit shocking that this was only done this year. That should not be the case. If the State makes a payment and it is taxable, then it should follow, as a basic principle, that it is automatically reported to the Revenue.”
“They reasonably assume that if the State is paying them an income, the tax due is being handled, but then, at the end of the year, without warning, they receive a tax bill. It is not because they did anything wrong but because the system relied on them to know something that would not be obvious to most people, namely, that their particular payments were not reported automatically. That creates stress and confusion. It undermines confidence in the system. It is especially frustrating because it is entirely avoidable. There is a further dimension to this. Since many of these payments are older legacy schemes, they are, by definition, more likely to affect older and more vulnerable citizens.”
“There remains a category of taxable Department of Social Protection payments, often older and more specialised schemes, where this integration has not taken place. The following payments are not automatically reported: the bereaved partner's pension, the blind pension, the death benefit, the deserted wife's allowance, the deserted wife's benefit, and the disablement payment. Instead, we rely on individual receipts to declare them manually. The consequences of this are very real. Imagine a person who has worked all his or her life and is now in receipt of a modest pension alongside a smaller welfare payment, or think of someone's grandmother who receives one of these legacy supports. These people are not tax experts.”
“I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. It is great to see the Minister here. I wish to raise a matter that, while it may appear technical on the surface, has very real consequences for ordinary people. I call on the Minister to make a statement on the need to move towards a more universal system where all taxable Department of Social Protection payments are automatically reported to the Revenue Commissioners. At present, our system is inconsistent. Many Department of Social Protection payments are already reported to Revenue in real time. The State pension, jobseeker's benefit, maternity benefit, and one-parent family payment are integrated into the PAYE system, allowing tax to be collected during the year in a relatively smooth and predictable way. However, that is not the full picture.”
“I have asked for a debate in this House on the Escorts Ireland website, which advertises sexual services in breach of our legislation. There are more than 900 women advertised on this site every single day. There are human trafficking concerns. The women are often controlled by organised crime gangs that operate in the sex trade. These websites provide anonymity for the buyers and pimps. They are generating millions in profit. The Sexual Exploitation Research and Policy Institute has asked the Minister to take action. Perhaps this is something he might consider. I do not know whether he can add it to the Bill but it is something I certainly would like to see addressed swiftly. The Minister might advise me on whether he can include it. I broadly support the Bill.”
“Nobody wants to see civil unrest in this country but the Defence Forces do not want to be some sort of back-up riot squad either. There must be processes, checks and balances and standard operating procedures. On reflection, going back to the recent protest, maybe things would have been done differently if we could do them again. Things were said and the Defence Forces were called in. The decision might have been made differently if there were proper supports for An Garda Síochána at the time. I have an issue with that. That is one of my big concerns. These miscellaneous provisions Bills are fantastic for bringing in all kinds of things. Is there anything the Minister can do in relation to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act? I do not know whether it can be amended or if this is it.”
“I was not expecting to be up so soon. I support many of the provisions the Minister is introducing in this Bill. We have been rolled into this House so many times regarding the extension of the permanent regulatory basis under which licensed premises may provide outdoor seating on public lands. The Government gave more than €20 million to provide the hospitality sector with outdoor seating during Covid. Every six months we had to come in here and extend the power, so I am absolutely delighted with this measure, which gives certainty to the sector. I am a little bit concerned about a couple of things. The first is in light of the protests we had recently. I refer to the deployment of members of the Defence Forces as an aid to the civil power.”
“Of course it is entitled to do so but just because it is permitted does not mean it is right. Like the Government parties, Sinn Féin also appears to be listening to the loud but minority left-wing ideologues within its ranks and not to its broader Catholic, nationalist and pro-family membership and voter base. In this Bill, both the Government and the left Opposition appear more content in copying their English counterparts in Keir Starmer's Labour Party than in doing the right thing by the Irish people and they will not forgive them come the next election.”
“Instead, the leadership of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are caving in to a loud but small group of people who are privileged to be disproportionately represented and present in higher echelons of society and politics and do not reflect the popular democratic feelings. I am deeply worried about this because it is exactly what many of us who supported the eighth amendment feared and warned about, that is, once the issue of abortion was taken out of the Constitution and put into statute, we would see a slow, continual coup, an erosion of any safeguards or measures to reduce abortion and would find ourselves on a slippery slope towards total, unlimited abortion access. There is something quite cynical in Sinn Féin bringing this forward so soon after such a similar Bill by the Social Democrats fell through.”
“I add my voice to the comments made today by Senators Mullen, Gallagher, O’Reilly and McCarthy on the new Bill introduced by Sinn Féin to eliminate the three-day waiting period before receiving an abortion, and to express my sadness at its being passed on Second Stage last night. With the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste standing back on this issue, it is very worrying. It is very worrying because there is no real evidence that there is broad public demand for this reform. In fact, most Irish people, even those who are in favour of abortion, believe there is a need to reduce it. Many who voted yes in the referendum only did so with the assurance that they would allow it in moderate and reasonable circumstances.”
“If the answer to these questions is "No", then we must accept that Ireland currently has no reliable way of knowing how many parents may have died following the removal of their children from them, and that is not an acceptable position. In light of Grace's heartbreaking death and the clear international evidence, I call on the Minister to commission an independent national report into the mental health and mortality outcomes of parents whose children are removed into State care.”
“A study published in The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry found that such mothers are almost three times more likely to attempt suicide and more than four times more likely to die by suicide. Similar findings have also been documented in the UK. This raises a very basic question. What do we know about this in Ireland? Does Tusla have data on the deaths, including deaths by suicide, of parents whose children are in care or subject to care proceedings? If not, how can it meaningfully assess the impact of child removal on parental well-being and mortality? Has any independent research been commissioned in this jurisdiction to examine this issue?”