Sorca Clarke
Longford-Westmeath · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“Online platforms that promote and facilitate suicide need to be stopped. I commend the team of The Journal Investigates for its work in exposing these sinister forums, which are banned in other jurisdictions but accessible here. They prey on vulnerable people and they encourage them into irreversible decisions.”
“I agree with the Minister on the issue of consistency. I do not believe anybody in this House would argue against schools with the greatest need having the greatest level of support.”
“This is about fairness and equity. The Minister mentioned the HP deprivation index. In the HP index, Granard scores higher than seven out of the ten areas that have been chosen in Longford. This does not make sense. Sacred Heart has been a DEIS band 1 school for 20 years. Since then, the demand on the school has increased dramatically.”
“Are there some learnings the Minister and her Department can take from this situation so that no other school is left in this position? If Sacred Heart meets that threshold for DEIS plus, can the Minister ensure it receives that designation without any further unnecessary delay?”
“When DEIS plus schools were announced in May, St. Joseph's and St. Michael's in Longford town were rightly included. However, Sacred Heart school in Granard, despite sharing the same DEIS history and facing significant educational disadvantage, was excluded and is now awaiting the outcome of an appeal.”
“The additional supports that would come with DEIS plus, the extra leadership, enhanced family supports and the additional educational resources would make a real and tangible difference to the children that this school educates.”
The complete record
Every one of 343 lines we hold for Sorca Clarke, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Sinn Féin will never accept a system where energy companies thrive while families struggle to survive. We need stronger consumer protection, real accountability and long-term investment in affordable public energy infrastructure. Above all, we need a Government that is willing to stand with ordinary people instead of standing back while prices spiral out of control.”
“In one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, no family should have to choose between heating their homes and feeding their children. This situation was created by years of weak regulation, market failure and political choices that prioritised energy companies over ordinary citizens. Across Ireland today, there are parents skipping meals in order that electricity meters stay running. Pensioners are sitting in the cold afraid to turn on their heaters. Workers are falling deeper into debt despite doing everything that is asked of them. The Minister said that this Bill is premature. In that context, how many people must be in energy debt before Government finally acts? We continue to have electricity prices among the highest in Europe. That is neither normal nor acceptable.”
“While energy giants protect massive profits, ordinary people are sitting at kitchen tables terrified to open another bill. Sinn Féin has repeatedly warned about profiteering, weak oversight and consumers being left completely exposed, all while 23% of our electricity goes to feed data centres in circumstances where the EU average in that regard is just 2%. The State will continue to lurch from one crisis to the next unless action is taken to reform how we approach our energy. The CRU must given expanded powers to allow it to monitor wholesale and retail pricing, investigate anti-competitiveness, oversee hedging practice and examine affordability. We need to end the wall of complexity and secrecy because consumers are expected to continually suck up price hikes.”
“I am compelled to say that if gaps arise in this Bill, they are going to arise immediately. Five years is a little too long to wait for the review. There is merit for an interim review, whether it is in the context of delays, staffing pressures, access to the advocacy or the pathways after somebody leaves their time as a in-patient. This Bill will change a lot in the area of mental health. I ask the Minister of State to please consider having an interim review, particularly in light of the complexity and scale of the legislation. I would not like to think that one person would feel they were somehow failed along the path as a result of the need to wait five years for the review.”
“I acknowledge the very hard work that has gone into producing what is a Bill of phenomenal size over the past number of years. I also acknowledge the engagement of all the stakeholders with my office and, previously, with Deputy Ward's office. That has not gone unnoticed and is very welcome. I wish to raise one final issue with the Minister of State. I raise it from a political perspective and almost as a personal plea at this point. I ask the Minister of State to look at the possibility of having an interim review after 2.5 years. We debated the latter on Committee Stage. Five years is too long to wait for a review. Yes, this Bill is coming 20-odd years after the previous legislation. I do not think there is one person sitting in this room who was born when the Act previous to that was introduced.”
“I would like to reiterate what I said earlier about that 28-day transition period. It is really crucial that nobody loses a pathway during that period as one becomes aligned with the other, particularly the new protections that will come in under the new Mental Health Act.”
“I ask the Minister of State to ensure the legal rights of individuals, whether they are voluntarily or involuntarily an inpatient at the moment, are central, protected and that those legal rights really stand up to scrutiny as we are moving from one to the other.”
“In regard to the transition from one framework to another, I will go back to this legislation being people orientated and rights orientated. I have a concern, not so much about the 28 days but about the reassessment of any individual who is there. Given the pressures that exist in the mental health services, as they stand today, I ask the Minister of State to keep a very close eye on what is going on there and to engage with both the staff and professionals in the services but also those who speak on behalf of patients. We do not want to have somebody fall through the cracks because we are saying 28 days is the transition period.”
“I welcome the clarity with regard to the Child Care Act in particular. Our legislation needs to align. One part cannot be contradictory to another. I have to put the question to the Minister of State in relation to GAL appointments, agency notification and court procedures. We need to see these structures being properly resourced in order that they are able to meet the demand that is there. I know that is not directly related to the legislation we are speaking about but an under-resourced system will have an impact on this legislation if it cannot work effectively.”
“Far too often, people express to me that they feel excluded and powerless in that system. If we genuinely believe in a rights-based mental health system, advocacy must be independent and available to the person from the first moment they are in a position to avail of it.”
“Informing people of available advocacy services is a positive but it is not the same as giving them access. One of the concerns I have is if a person is detained and is frightened or overwhelmed, they may not be in a position to navigate the system alone or to use the information that is given to them. For a person in that position, the information is useless unless there is somebody there with them to help them navigate the system. There needs to be independent advocacy. It should be a practical right, not a theoretical option. We need to look at the role of advocates in this regard, even down to things like understanding decisions and communicating effectively the person's will or preference. A legal right to advocacy could build confidence in our mental health system.”
“I just want to be very clear on this. What that section states is, "it would be in the best interests of the child for any persons specified in subsection (1)(a) or (2)(a) not to be provided with information on the application of restrictive practices".”
“345, which inserts a new section after section 91. It states: Where the responsible consultant psychiatrist forms an opinion that it would be in the best interests of the child for any persons specified in subsection (1)(a) or (2)(a) not to be provided with information on the application of restrictive practices, such information is not required to be provided. My understanding is that this means that a consultant psychiatrist may not be required to inform the parent when a restrictive practice has been used on his or her child. Could the Minister of State give an example of such a circumstance that may exist in the real world?”
“It is important that pharmacological restraint is mentioned here because if the State or any service intervenes in a way that limits a person's liberty, movement or bodily autonomy, the safeguards have to be exact. In addition, it has to be a genuine last resort, clinically justified, proportionate, time limited and independently scrutinised. I would like to see mandatory recording, clear notification procedures, oversight by the Mental Health Commission, and regular publication of anonymised data. People in crisis deserve care, compassion, and de-escalation first, and restrictive interventions must never become substitutes for proper treatment, staffing shortages, overcrowding or unsuitable settings. I have a specific question that I would like an answer to. It relates to subsection (3) of amendment No.”
“The person has got to be at the very centre of every decision we make today, or which is contained within the Bill. In relation to amendment No. 67, the administration powers engage some of the most fundamental rights any citizen has. We are talking about a citizen’s liberty, dignity and family life. That is why an application process must be clear, understood by the person, evidence-based and free from any form of conflicts of interest. Service users need to have confidence that decisions are clinically justified, procedurally fair and subject to that meaningful review. We will come back to that at a later time. I will finish on this section by saying safeguards are not obstacles. They are essential protections for every single one of us. I still have very real concerns about those 14 days.”
“A guiding principle throughout the Bill should be the least restrictive approach because that is how we ultimately get the correct balance between care, a person’s dignity, and his or her rights. In terms of court applications and treatment decisions, it is one of my most firmly held believes that when courts are involved in treatment decisions the process has to be fair, swift and person-centred. Any delays in court processes can further delay treatment. At the same time, we cannot deny a person’s rights simply for speed. I would like to see a system that guarantees access to legal representation, supported decisions and clear pathways so that the person understands where the courts are required. While we are debating a Bill, this is fundamentally about people.”
“That is why I look forward to it being included in the review. Where coercive powers exist, the bar really has to be set and remain high for the patient’s wellbeing and legal entitlements and rights. In relation to the capacity assessments and consent safeguards, capacity is not fixed. Those 14 days have me very concerned because capacity can fluctuate very quickly, particularly when it comes to mental health. It can improve and return quickly, particularly following a crisis and during treatment. The Minister of State said she would do them every day if she could but that is not realistic. There has to be a timeframe. Given the fluid and rapidly changing nature of capacity, when it returns, personal autonomy has to be immediately restored to the person. I have very real concerns about the 14 days.”
“I wish to start with amendments Nos. 57, 155 and 172, particularly in relation to the materiality benefit threshold. This is a very positive improvement. There has to be real, demonstrable justification for any state to compel admission or treatment, and there has to be that demonstrable prospect of therapeutic aim. Involuntary powers should only be used where strictly necessary and where meaningful clinical benefit is likely. However, I have some issues with wording only being on a page. The real test of this is going to be how it is interpreted in practice. I look forward to seeing it included in any review, either full or interim, how this is working in practice. Words on a page do not give equal strength across the board. If I interpret something as being demonstrable, does another person have the same interpretation?”
“We cannot allow that continue to happen. I believe that a discharge plan, particularly for a child, should begin on admission with the family involvement, a school liaison, community follow-up and also, critically, clear accountability for aftercare because recovery does not stop at the hospital door when a person leaves. If continuity of care fails, then it is children and families who are left carrying the burden, and that is grossly unfair.”
“We have had this debate in the House repeatedly, but I do not think any child should be placed in an adult unit, particularly because of pressures in the system elsewhere. That is a failure. The numbers may be small but every single time that happens, it is a further failure by the State. A wrong is a wrong and it should not happen whatsoever. I recognise and welcome the prohibition of ECT for children. That is a very important safeguard. Such a practice may not have happened in 15 years but it should not have been on the books as having the potential to happen. The prohibition is a positive thing. Moving to amendment No. 330 and discharges and service transition issues, we have all spoken with people who have been through various levels of the mental health system and they speak of cliff edges and a lack of joined-up and continuous care.”
“The garda said that they completely understand the need for the presence of gardaí in some cases, but they were a firm believer that a Garda station was not a place for a child to be brought back, especially one with mental health issues. If that is coming from the gardaí themselves, there is an onus on us to listen and act. There will never be a better opportunity to do that than here during this Bill. Talking about children can be a very distressing part of a mental health Bill, but mental health concerns, issues and illnesses do not begin when somebody turns 18. We must have these conversations from a point of view of it being a health-led response to a crisis without the involvement of An Garda Síochána. Yes, the clinical assessment needs to be done but it needs to be done in a place that is appropriate and in an age-appropriate way.”
“I do not believe that the Garda station is the right place for a person in mental health distress to be. In fact, it is completely inappropriate. It can cause further trauma and long-term issues with their self-esteem and sense of being. Gardaí have enough work to be doing without also trying to double-job as something that they are not qualified to do, by which I mean the area of medical expertise. With the inclusion of this provision, there is a very real chance of further stigmatising someone who is a child and reinforcing the harmful association between mental health and criminality. If the Minister of State were to look at some of the comments that Mental Health Reform has outlined, she would see that one of them was a direct quote from a garda.”
“I recognise the improvements that have been made to this Bill since we last debated it in this House, both by our colleagues in the Seanad and through the moves the Minister of State has made. It is important to recognise when positive steps are taken. While we may not agree on everything politically, it does not mean that we ignore where we do agree on some things that have changed. I will speak to amendments Nos. 276 to 278, inclusive, 288 to 290, inclusive, and 330. I am very concerned about children in Garda stations. We have had debates in this House before about people in mental health distress being in unsuitable locations at that time. It was part of our Private Members' business on accident and emergency units and adults and children in mental health distress.”
“Workers should have the legal right to collective bargaining, union access to workplaces, a living wage and stronger rights to flexible and remote working. The Government should stop pretending that national growth figures mean everybody is prospering; they are not. They certainly are not in Longford and they certainly are not in Westmeath and nor are any of those 50,000 families relying on State wage supports. If the Government truly believes in rewarding work, it is time to prove it. I ask the Minister to withdraw his amendment and support this motion, workers, and fair pay.”
“In Longford-Westmeath, disposable income is between 15% and 25% below average. This means that workers in my area, which is also the Minister’s area, are being asked to cope on lower incomes while they face the same rising costs for food, energy, childcare and housing as everybody else. When this Government delays the living wage until 2029, who does the Government think is carrying that burden? It is not those at the top; it is the workers in counties like Longford and Westmeath and families already stretched to the limit. Over half of workers say they are not paid fairly. One in four jobs is classed as poor quality. Nearly half of non-union workers say they would join a union if they could.”
“I too want to welcome our union representatives in the Gallery and commend them for the work they do, day in and day out, representing workers across the country. Workers are tired. They are tired of hearing that the economy is thriving while they struggle from week to week. The Government boasts about growth in exports and record employment, but workers cannot pay sky-high bills or meet the rising fuel costs with GDP figures, and nor can they buy groceries with headlines about surpluses. The reality is that for the last number of weeks, the Government has fallen over itself to tell the good and great that the fuel allowance has been extended to over 50,000 working families who rely on the working family payment. If work paid properly, however, then families would not need the State to top up their wages. Inequality is not spread evenly.”
“It must reverse the restrictions that block children from accessing SNAs, recognise SNAs and the roles they play, reverse the junior and leaving certificate fees because it is penny pinching, row back on the school transport scheme fare increases at a time when the cost of living is biting families and guarantee every child a real school place, real support, real therapies and real equality. There should be no more spin, no more cuts by stealth and no more hiding behind announcements and re-announcements.”
“The Government restricts SNA access through outdated rules. This is not efficiency; it is cruelty wrapped in bureaucracy. The Government announced inclusive classes that are larger yet have the same level of supports. That is not inclusion; it is dilution. The Government refuses to publish the true number of children who are still without places for school in September 2026. Why does it not do so? It is because the truth would expose the scale of Government failure. Children and families do not need another announcement or review. They need accountability and action. The Government must establish that all-party Oireachtas committee on the future of inclusive education and bring parents, teachers, SNAs, therapists, school leaders and educators into a public forum.”
“Reading through some of the messages and emails that I got before this motion, I was struck with the very real thought, namely, what exactly does the State have against children who require additional support? The fact that the Taoiseach called the Save our SNAs campaign flawed has done nothing but make that thought concrete in my mind. These are children who are denied school places and bused out of their own communities past their local schools for hours because the Government failed to plan. In Longford-Westmeath, families are exhausted. They are exhausted by a system that treats their child's additional needs as an inconvenience and exhausted by a special education system being redesigned by stealth. The Government has removed complex needs from a set of allocation criteria. This was not reform; it was rationing.”
“I am very disappointed that there is nothing in the Minister of State's response that would indicate they are wrong to feel that way. The €7 billion announced means nothing to them; they are not included in it. Their children are still going back to a cold, damp, squishy floor in a mould-covered school tomorrow and after the Easter break. I want to bring it back to this issue because it is what is important here. This school is in the children's community. It is the local school, and the six teachers and staff are doing fantastic work. These are not just my words that I am putting on the record here. Everything I have said has been confirmed by an engineer's report and in correspondence sent to the Department.”
“In the concrete part of the school, there is one classroom and a multifunctional room, and I use that term lightly. This multifunctional room is the principal's office, the secretary's office and the staff room. It is also where children with special educational needs are taught. That part of the room is divided from the secretary's workplace by a row of filing cabinets. The school build, as it stands, is simply not fit for purpose. The school was given a commitment that this build would be done. Now, almost four years later, there is still no sign of it. The staff are doing the best they can in inappropriate facilities. Pupils are learning in unsuitable conditions and members of the school community feel they have been left behind.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his response, which is very similar to a response to a parliamentary question I received. He emphasised special educational needs. The school in question has a child waiting to start in the special class promised in 2022. The class has not materialised and the child is still waiting. The Minister of State also referred to cost capacities and value for money. Department officials came to the school and told it what should be built, which was far in excess of what the school itself had asked for. Today, there are children sitting in a classroom with walls that show signs of structural instability. I certainly would not accept one of my children being in a school like that. Would the Minister of State? I do not think any parent should have to do that. I will give another fact about this school.”
“This is a basic requirement for a safe, dry and modern school building. Cloontagh National School may be a small school but the children who attend that school deserve the same standard of facilities as any child anywhere else in the State. Will the Department recognise that this case is urgent? Will it be prioritised? When will the project move to construction and, in the interim, will a full health and safety audit be carried out on the exiting facilities? This current situation cannot continue.”
“She is pleading for help because this school was already approved for a new building in 2022. The agreed designs were of the Department's standards and were well above what the school itself had originally asked for. Land has been purchased, designs prepared, engineers paid and plans drawn up but today those children are still in that same prefab and the building is simply not fit for purpose. I asked a parliamentary question as to where this school was on the timeline for additional school accommodation and I was told that no timeline can be given for when construction will begin. That answer may satisfy a file but it certainly does not satisfy the parents and the staff nor does it meet the needs of the children who have to sit in that school every day. This is not a luxury project by any stretch. This is not a wish list.”
“The accommodation itself in the prefab is a small lobby, a toilet and a classroom and the only way I can describe the floor in certain areas of that prefab is that it is squishy when you walk on it. No prefab floor should be squishy when you walk on it but that is exactly what is happening. There is also significant and concerning signs of structural instability in that prefab and that is the reality for those kids today. The principal wrote to the Department last year describing persistent damp mould, maggots and flies appearing inside the classroom, heating that cannot keep the building warm and the damage to the ICT equipment because of the moisture level, clearly stating how the school was in crisis mode and that the building is no longer fit for purpose. She is not exaggerating.”
“The principal wrote to the Department in November outlining how the school was in crisis mode and had genuine health, safety and well-being risks. A photograph I am showing here from an engineer's report was also sent to the Department. It shows glue sticks black with the mould from being in that classroom. This is simply not good enough from any school, never mind a primary school. The biggest concern that was outlined to me was the prefab structure that is also on-site. It is decades old and it is clearly failing. That engineer's report from February of this year shows visible deterioration of the external walls, mould growth inside the toilet area, water ingress through the ceiling, and even lifting floors and peeling walls inside the teaching space.”
“I wish to raise with the Minister of State the situation of Cloontagh National School in County Longford. This is a rural DEIS school between Ballymahon and Longford town where the children and the staff are being asked to learn and work in conditions that are simply not acceptable in 2026. I visited this school recently and I was struck by the artwork on the walls, the colour, the kids out in the yard having the craic as all kids should be, and the passion that the teachers and the staff brought. However, that could not and will not hide the reality of the condition of the buildings in which the children are being taught. There is constant damp. There is mould on the walls, the ceilings and even on the floors. Dehumidifiers are running constantly. Equipment and laptops in use by the teachers have been replaced due to moisture damage.”
“Survivors have endured unimaginable trauma. I cannot imagine the trauma of not knowing where a loved one is buried. They should not be retraumatised by decisions taken without them about their history and against their wishes. A grave injustice was done. It cannot and must not be covered over. Sinn Féin is determined to secure truth and justice for survivors of mother and baby homes and for those who did not survive. They have strength and resilience, but what must seem like an ever-ongoing reopening of scars and traumatic events cannot continue to be inflicted upon them by the State or any arms of its apparatus.”
“If this development proceeds without a full investigation, without proper consultation with survivors and without ensuring that all burial grounds are identified and treated with respect, the State will be failing these women and children all over again. There must be immediate action to safeguard this site and a full and thorough examination of the grounds is required. Survivors and families must be consulted and listened to. Local memorialisation must be provided and no development should proceed until the truth is fully established. The Taoiseach himself has said the State failed mothers and children in these institutions, but words must mean something. If we allow this site to be built over without first establishing what lies beneath, not only will history just be neglected, it will be actively erased.”
“From the commission of investigation established ten years ago and the sealing of the records to the redress scheme that excluded survivors, there have been repeated failures to confront the truth. Once again, we are faced with a decision that appears to prioritise moving on over finding out what really happened and attempting to bring some level of closure to those women who suffered so horrifically within those walls. There is no doubt that we need housing, and Sinn Féin supports developments, but we support the development of homes in the right place at the right time and not at the cost of covering up the truth or stripping dignity away further. We cannot build over sites where there are still unanswered questions about unmarked graves, missing records and the fate of children who died in State-supported institutions.”
“I acknowledge the Minister's opening statement and the recognition of a forensic archaeologist but that is simply not good enough. This week, academics and human rights experts warned that allowing large-scale development on this site risks undermining Ireland's obligations to properly investigate locations connected to mother and baby homes. They raised serious concerns that the full extent of burials may not yet be known and that construction could proceed without questions being answered. These warnings cannot be ignored. They must be taken seriously by the Government and the planning authorities. Sinn Féin has been clear and consistent on the legacy of mother and baby homes: survivors and families must come first. The record of successive Governments on this issue has been one of delay, exclusion and avoidance.”
“This decision risks erasing history and erasing the often horrific lived experiences of women and their children. These are not distant, abstract stories. The Minister mentioned 1998. I was a mother in 1998. These are real people who suffered real injustices at the hands of both the State and the church. They are sisters, aunts, daughters, mothers and children. They are families who were failed and who continue to be failed. We know that hundreds of mothers and children died in Bessborough during its years of operation. We know there are no records for some of those who died there. We know that the commission itself said it is highly likely that burials took place on the grounds. In that context, how can any development proceed in good conscience without first establishing the full truth?”
“The decision to grant planning permission for a residential development on the site of the former Bessborough mother and baby home in Cork is deeply wrong. It is deeply troubling and profoundly disrespectful to the women and children who lived there, who suffered there and who died there. Bessborough is not just another development site; it is a place of trauma, loss and gross injustice. It is a place where women were confined, where children died and where families are still searching for the truth. We cannot discuss planning at Bessborough as if it is comparable to any other planning application in the State, as if it is simply another zoned map. This is about history, accountability, human dignity and the real impact that Bessborough still has on those who were there.”
“I raise with the Tánaiste the decision of Government to reintroduce the leaving certificate and junior certificate fees at a time when families are under such immense financial pressure, between energy arrears and struggling with the rising cost of food and fuel. This is also the week when the annual direct debit for the local property tax came out of many people's bank accounts. One parent put it to me that the last thing her family needs is another bill coming through the door and that they simply cannot get blood from a stone. These fees are a tax on learning and they are hitting most working, struggling families and hitting them the hardest. At a time when households are at breaking point, this is tone deaf, quite frankly. Will the Tánaiste please review this decision? Families simply do not have this money.”
“It says their concerns are not being heeded and will always be of lower priority than those of other areas. That is incredibly unfair. It is also incredibly unfair for the people living in Longford, who, when they call the Garda station to get a response to an incident, are told the gardaí cannot go out because they cannot leave the station unstaffed. That is not a functioning Garda model; that is a broken Garda model. It is also very unfair on our gardaí. Mullingar gardaí secured the first conviction for human trafficking in this State. That did not come about by chance. That came about through dedication, good policing and an absolute determination to see that to the end. This needs to be fixed. Sinn Féin has put forward proposal after proposal but the Minister needs to act on them because my constituents deserve better.”
“My constituency is split across two separate Garda divisions. If I look at the numbers on a spreadsheet, I can tell the House that the number of gardaí in Meath–Westmeath is 551. That area is 4,200 sq. km. Roscommon–Longford has 581 gardaí and that area is over 9,000 sq. km. I do not need a spreadsheet to tell me that we do not have enough gardaí in our towns, villages and rural communities. I will give a very good example. There was recently a meeting in Rochfortbridge, Westmeath, on road safety and roads policing. The garda who attended, a very dedicated garda heading the traffic corps, came from Navan, which is 50 km away. What does that say to the people of Rochfortbridge? What does it say to the people of a very small rural community if the head of the traffic corps has to travel 50 km from a major town to their little rural village?”
“Please do not. You have utilised your colleague's time. I propose that we take a moment of reflection because the debate is moving slightly ahead of time. If the next speaker does not appear, I will call Deputy Gogarty next but I would like to give him ten seconds, with the indulgence of the House.”
“Today marks World Hearing Day with the World Health Organization focusing on prevention of hearing loss and ear care for children. Almost 14,000 children are waiting on HSE hearing loss assessments alongside more than 13,000 adults, some of whom have been waiting for over a year. One deaf working couple, James and Ruth, have spoken about having to pay €10,000 for essential hearing aids every five to seven years. Their income makes them ineligible for a medical card. In 2024, the Government established a working group to develop a national hearing care plan. The working group has yet to deliver a report while those waiting lists continue to grow. When will we see a national hearing care plan? When will it be implemented? What is the Government doing today to ensure that children are prioritised for hearing loss prevention and ear care?”
“Justice must be delivered but an apology has to be the beginning not the end because an apology without justice is hollow and empty and those four people sitting in the Gallery today and all the others like them deserve so much more than that.”
“That was not survivor-centred; it was bureaucracy-centred. It created a hierarchy of pain based on arbitrary lines. Survivors of institutional abuse were failed as children by religious orders and by the State - by the very systems that were meant to protect them - and they carried the consequences of that for a lifetime. Enduring trauma, an indelible mark was put upon them by those in authority and they were criminalised. The State now has an opportunity and an obligation to move beyond symbolism and deliver concrete, equitable, survivor-centred supports and a timeline for the delivery of them. All commitments must be delivered.”