Victor Boyhan
Agricultural Panel · Independent · Ireland
“It also mentions the agrifood sector and the importance of diversification in agriculture, the maritime sector, coastal communities and fishing communities in terms of rural policy.”
“I know from my engagement with both the Department and the Minister that over 900 submissions to the consultation process were received. No Member or parliamentarian will have had the opportunity to consider the anonymised version of these consultations, which contain many good suggestions in favour of the regulations and many concerns in…”
“I welcome the Minister and the official to the Seanad. This is particularly important Private Members' business. I thank Senators Collins and Tully for setting out the background and the rationale behind their Private Members' motion. I acknowledge the Minister's exceptional commitment to rural Ireland and his Ministry.”
“I am conscious of the Minister's public consultation, and I acknowledge it and thank them for it, in relation to the Our Rural Future work programme in 2025. In fairness to him, he did not stop at that. I received a further update when I requested it from his office very recently.”
“This will come about through that process. It is for the Minister to decide. Maybe he will do so tomorrow when the regulations are dealt with. However, when Senators are in this Chamber discussing these regulations tomorrow, they will have no sight of any constituent who made a submission. That is my first item.”
“I am pleased to see Senator Byrne in the Leader’s chair. I wish him well in that job. I also wish him well in his new position as Government Whip. There are three items I wish to discuss today. First is the exempt development regulations, which are being covered extensively in the media.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,616 lines we hold for Victor Boyhan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 33.
“I will come back to the Minister of State to ensure we are clear and all on the one page on something. We are discussing the fifth group of amendments. I have called them all out. They are all in the Minister of State's name. I am very aware of my amendment No. 36a. The Minister of State is also very aware of it and I thank her for reminding me. Of course, she will be dealing with that. I will be pushing the case and she will be responding with her own view and considered opinion, which I respect. However, we are now dealing with this set of amendments. This is the process. We have Standing Orders and this is what has been agreed. I did not agree these groupings or put them together. I just work with what is presented to us. The Minister of State is endorsing this particular group of amendments.”
“Will the Minister of State be absolutely clear that she is confident and has been advised and assured that the amendments put to us here today are fully compliant with those two important UN conventions? Will she give us that categorical assurance on the record of the House?”
“I mentioned two things to the Minister of State. She said we are talking about children but we are talking about adults as well. I mentioned the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I also mentioned the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This series of amendments, the fifth group, are mostly in the Minister of State's name. They are her amendments. She brought them to the House for our approval after consideration and debate. I asked the Minister of State to clarify and to give us absolute assurance because the key plank for a lot of people here is their concern that people's human rights are protected. These rights are enshrined in these UN conventions. They are important.”
“Will the Minister of State give assurances in relation to this group of amendments that she has every confidence and she has been advised professionally and legally that they will be fully compatible with these two important conventions, to which Ireland is a signatory? We cannot be at odds with these two important conventions. I am interested to hear the Minister of State's thoughts on this and to have her assurances on the points I outlined.”
“We have to always be concerned that with any legislation there are no negative consequences from anything we might enact. The Minister of State will be familiar with the UNCRC. The various articles clearly set the definition of "child", non-discrimination and so on. Article 7 states: "States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children." This is referred to in the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Clearly, the parliamentary counsel who drafted this legislation have examined this in some detail. They are certainly conscious of it because it is echoed in the explanatory memorandum.”
“Clearly, there is an issue of medical consent for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds where they have capacity.. Then we have the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD. The Minister of State will be very familiar with her own explanatory memorandum to this Bill and these two primary conventions that Ireland is a signatory to. Let us keep this all very simple. I am seeking reassurances about this legislation and particularly this group of amendments. We will talk as we go through the legislation, but it will be my recurring theme in this because it is really important. I have had representations on this from individuals and advocacy groups. I welcome all the people here today and the people who are tuned in to these proceedings.”
“This group of amendments are effectively all the Minister of State's amendments. We do not have to go through them because I will explain as I go along. Group 5 is amendments Nos. 10, 26, 46, 53, 54, 56, 69 to 73, inclusive, 78 to 83, inclusive, and 85 to 88, inclusive. These are fairly minor amendments and there is a recurring theme within the grouping. I thank the Minister of State and her officials for sending on some details this afternoon in line with what we had asked for. I have not had time to study them because they came late, but I thank the Minister her for them and I have got the grasp of them. A common theme for me throughout all of this legislation is the issue of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNCRC. We had some discussion about the definition of a "child".”
“Could the Minister of State just clarify the last point about the maximum and minimum? She suggests it may drop according to a sliding scale, subject to regulation. She referred to the maximum, but what does she envisage as the minimum? I am talking about the sliding scale to a minimum, which would be done by regulation.”
“I ask that we follow this up in a timely manner in the first quarter of next year. Let us not lose sight of it and let us be there to support the various people involved, in this case the survivors. The Minister has an important interdepartmental group looking at the parallel issues of redress and who will ultimately pick up the tab for that redress, or partially pick up the tab for it. Could the Leader bear that in mind and keep it on his schedule for the early part of next year?”
“My concern here is that this group will look at the issue of a potential redress scheme. Clearly, there is no redress scheme in place. There is no power to award redress under the terms of reference of the commission. There are two parallel sets of work here. There is the commission doing its investigation and there is the important high-level interdepartmental group set up by the Minister and they are running parallel to each other. As parliamentarians, we have to be vigilant. There has been a lot of debate and engagement on various pieces of legislation. In due course, in the first quarter of next year, I ask that we have the Minister for education in to fill us in on the interdepartmental aspects of this important work. The Minister is on the record now. I can make the letter available to the Leader.”
“In essence, without sharing the full content of the letter, I have now had clarification that the commission of investigation has been established by the Government to investigate the handling of historical child sex abuse in our day and boarding schools. The chair is, of course, Mr. Justice Michael MacGrath. He was appointed on 1 October 2025. The commission is independent in its role and duties and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to talk at any great length about it here at this point in time other than to say the survivors will be engaged with and notified of the due processes to follow. What was very important in this correspondence from the Minister this morning was that a high-level interdepartmental group, IDG, has been established to advise the Government.”
“I want to touch very briefly on the issue of the commission of investigation that has been established by the Government to investigate the handling of historical child sexual abuse in our day and boarding schools. I do not want to comment on the case that was made yesterday other than to say it clearly hit the media last night. There have been a lot of communications with all Oireachtas Members in relation to Willow Park in Blackrock. However, I wrote a brief note to the Minister for education last night and, to her credit, at 8 o'clock this morning, I received a detailed response. There is one I want to put on the record and I thank the Minister, Deputy Hildegarde Naughton.”
“It is leaving farmers, businesspeople and people seeking homes in distress and leaving many issues unresolved. I know the Minister of State will have to investigate all of that, but I ask him to commit to a root-and-branch review of the organisation. I will contact the members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, under whose remit this body falls, to ask to bring in representatives of Tailte Éireann as early in the new year as possible. There are big problems here that impact the Minister of State's constituents and mine.”
“It needs to, and I am calling on the Minister of State to use his powers and have a discussion with his management team and find out what is going to Tailte Éireann. I will be writing to the Committee of Public Accounts because I believe we need to examine Tailte Éireann and its practices. It is not fit for purpose. I do not want to get into personal cases, but I know people who have been waiting for two or three years. The Minister of State said it takes 14 or 15 days. If there is a query, cases are left sitting and are not sent back. When people ring up, they are refused a conversation. They are told they must go through their solicitors. I want to say it loud and clear: this organisation is simply not fit for purpose. It is not doing its job in a professional or timely manner.”
“I thank the Minister of State. I did tell him it was Wednesday 26 February. The cut-and-paste sentences in the beginning are exactly the same but forget about that. People have to do a job, and I understand that. The Minister of State has shined a light in a few places. All of that, I dare say spiel, but, respectfully, all that the Minister of State read out there is about resources. There are 71 vacancies in an organisation that is two years old. This is the story that is told to the solicitors who ring up. I sat in a solicitor's office last Friday and what people are told when they ring up is that they cannot do anything about that. It is a disgrace if Tailte Éireann is not functioning for our farmers, farm lands, farm buildings, commercial people, residential people and young people trying to get property.”
“There are young people waiting who have lost deposits waiting for Tailte Éireann because the vendor has had a problem with Tailte Éireann. Tailte Éireann is not fit for purpose as of today. I have substantial evidence to back that up. The citizens and solicitors who engage and make representations to Tailte Éireann on behalf of their clients should be able to track using a tracking system so that they can click in with their Tailte Éireann number to find out where they are in the line of the decision-making with the organisation. That is my ask. I have drafted a number of parliamentary questions. I am meeting a Deputy this week to talk about submitting them. I want to get the direct response from the Minister of State. Hopefully, we can put in place some mechanism of reform.”
“I do not come in here and knock things. I come in to highlight deficiencies and come up with positive suggestions. If a person applies for a passport today, it will be validated and then go on a tracker system. There is no such thing as an open tracker system. There is no open transparency and accountability about this organisation. We have built this monster called Tailte Éireann. Now it is suggested that it does not have resources. This is a closely aligned organisation with the Department. Does it have the resources? I do not want that excuse anymore. Does it have the manpower? Does it have the IT technologies, structures and software and hardware in place to manage it? This is an important arm of State.”
“We talk about dereliction, which the Minister of State know wells in his Ministry and his commitment to the restoration of our old towns and cities, croí cónaithe initiatives and all of that. Behind many of the derelict properties, we have issues about title, registration, probate or disputed ownership. This is where Tailte Éireann is critical. It was established to speed up these processes. We know that there are people going on for years waiting for a process. People have contacted Tailte Éireann and have been that told: "No, you cannot deal with us. You must go back to your solicitor." I have a lot of documentation on this organisation. I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors yesterday. I am saying advisedly that this organisation is simply not fit for purpose. We should carry out an audit of its functions.”
“It relates to the need for the Minister of State from the Department to make a statement on the dealings and issues around the governance and the timely matter in which Tailte Éireann carries out or seeks to carry out its business and the problems that are associated with that. The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland has run a number of commentaries on it. Solicitors up and down this country have concerns about Tailte Éireann. The Bar Council has concerns about it. I have ongoing experience with it, which I do not intend bringing in. My contribution is not motivated by my difficulties with Tailte Éireann. This situation relates to many farmers, house purchasers, sellers and people who wish to dispose of commercial property.”
“I welcome the Minister of State to the House and thank him for coming. I am raising an issue about Tailte Éireann. Tailte Éireann resulted from the merger of the Property Registration Authority, Valuation Office and Ordnance Survey Ireland. I was a member of the Oireachtas joint committee that scrutinised the legislation on this and teased out the issues. We warmly welcomed Tailte Éireann and its establishment. At that time, it promised many things. I had tabled the exact same Commencement matter previously. I look forward to a different response. I have the script and response. I would not mislead the Minister of State. That Commencement matter was on 26 February 2025.”
“There is great hope in this plan. I ask the Acting Leader to convey, at some appropriate time, my wish for a debate on the 30 objectives in the plan.”
“Indeed, I have objected to particular things. I have successfully pursued issues through An Coimisiún Pleanála where the board has found in favour of my case. That is true of many other people here. There are processes in place and we must exercise them, but it must be done in a balanced and fair way. The Tánaiste's comments on the plan have been reported in all media today. He echoed the sentiments that the Government must address the imbalance that currently exists. The president of the Irish Planning Institute, Mr. Gavin Lawlor, welcomed the plan and said that this initiative is to engage with communities more around the concept of the common good and the benefits that sustainable infrastructure will bring to wider society and the environment. We are beginning to see greater understanding in the language.”
“Having said that, I also believe that citizens have rights and they are addressed, to a certain extent, in this proposal, at least according to media reports this morning. The plan contains and sets out 30 measures intended to remove the barriers to infrastructure and development across Ireland. That will include legal and regulatory reforms, which is important. The Taoiseach is quoted in the press as saying that issues should be resolved in the planning system and not the courts. I agree. Issues should be resolved at An Coimisiún Pleanála and the planning authorities. There is a wake-up call that we must take seriously what our citizens are saying and what people are engaging with. We need to focus on that because citizens have rights. I have no doubt that most TDs, councillors and Senators have made submissions.”
“I welcome Senator Fitzpatrick as acting Acting Leader of the Seanad. It is an honour for her and I know she will do a good job. I want to follow on from what Senator Conway was talking about in respect of the Government publishing the accelerating infrastructure report and action plan. I welcome that. We all know that we need to put infrastructure in place. The Acting Leader served for a long time on the housing committee. I was with her on the committee. An issue that was constantly raised at the committee was that while there was a plan for housing, we also needed to address the issues that were impediments to housing, enterprise and industry. It is clear that we have issues in respect of critical infrastructure.”
“I will send the Leader on the stuff I have today and ask him to raise it with his own contacts within his own parliamentary party and with the Minister for Health.”
“A lot of these treatments can be done quickly and timely, but there is a problem as those who need it form a very extensive group. It was brought to my attention by a colleague of the Leader, Councillor Clodagh Higgins, on Galway Bay FM in the past week. A breakdown of the figure stated that more than 3,600 people in Galway alone are waiting for eyecare treatment. That makes it very focused, brings it home and makes it relevant to the Leader. It is something that really is appalling, considering elderly people physically cannot see the ground in front of them, and thereby are disadvantaged. We are trying to support elderly people. I ask that we have a debate on eyecare because it is a specific niche we need to look at.”
“I commend this report into the Brazilian meat industry, commissioned by the Irish Farmers' Journal and the IFA. It is very clear in setting out its concerns. It has to be alarming. I know that we have just come from a private meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. I know Sinn Féin Deputy Martin Kenny indicated and spoke about how we will discuss it. As a sectoral committee, it is important it is discussed there. For rural Senators and TDs, it is important they are fully aware of it. If they do not have the report, I recommend finding it. The next issue I raise is the more than 7,500 people who need cataract surgery in Ireland. This is quite a simple procedure. I am a former director of the National Treatment Purchase Fund. I know how it handled it in the past.”
“I want to raise two issues. The IFA and the Irish Farmers' Journal have to be commended on a very extensive report the Leader may have heard and read about in the media in the past few days. The report is about the investigation into Brazil and its beef. I will not quote extensively from it. There are very serious concerns about meat, the Mercosur deal and access to the market, but I can say it was a very extensive fact-finding mission. It raises very serious concerns about a level playing pitch and about what the Irish meat producers and the European meat producers have to deal with versus what is happening in Brazil. There is light touch regulation and the report details the experience of this group that went out from the IFA, the Irish Farmers' Journal and other people with authority in this area. They are also detailed in this report.”
“I thank the Minister of State for using her own initiative to fire ahead. Her statement is a fitting response to a number of the amendments that called for regulations to be made. She has tasked the commission to do this work and produce a draft set of regulations. That is all very positive. I thank the Minister of State.”
“That is great. I want to touch on this group of amendments, which calls for regulations. I have learned from the Minister of State, who can tell me I am wrong if I misunderstood her, that she has tasked the Mental Health Commission to come up with draft regulations. That is positive because the commission is the expert in this field. I have learned two things from the Minister of State's response to this series of amendments. First, research has been carried out and a report was produced, although I do not know how extensive it is. Second, she has just agreed to check whether we can have the report. I do not see any reason we should not have it. It would be helpful if we could have it as soon as possible as it would give us a greater understanding of what is going on.”
“The Minister of State's helpful statement leads to more questions. She told us she requested the Mental Health Commission to do qualitative research and this fed into the process. That is enlightening and I thank the Minister of State for it. I ask her to share that research with us because it is important. We all want to enhance the legislation. The Minister of State clearly learned something from that research and fed it into the process, which is great. We, too, would like to have the benefit of that research because we are at the early stages of this legislation.”
“I wish to understand what the Minister of State understands to be a care order. She said she would come back to it later. This is the next section where we are dealing with care orders. The Minister of State said that when we got to the bit about care orders, we would clarify. It is important that we know her understanding of what a care order is as opposed to that of anyone else.”
“I ask for some guidance on the timelines involved because any delay in this process has ramifications too. When people are waiting for a capacity assessment, are we talking about 24 hours, 48 hours, ten days or 14 days? That is very significant because those people are held for a longer period and there are human rights issues in that regard. There are a load of other issues too, such as personal integrity, bodily integrity and the mind. It is really important. The timelines are very important.”
“As we are here today - I say this in the spirit of good will - there will be people on to us tomorrow saying they tuned in to this debate and felt that this was not explained to us. The Minister of State’s explanation and commitment to provide us with a briefing memo, hopefully well in advance of our next meeting, will be helpful.”
“I understand exactly what the Minister of State means. That would be helpful to us. It would be helpful because there is, as I said, a crossover with children. We know there are very vulnerable children and there is no dispute that they are children. I am speaking as someone who knows some of these 16- and 17-year-olds. We all have families who have been touched by issues around this. It is very difficult for the guardian, the carer, the person in official care or the parents. These are challenging people and circumstances for everyone. Empowering people is all very well, but we also have to have the capacity piece. It would be important because, as I said, there are huge crossovers with the Departments of justice and children in this regard. It would be a crossover memo on that.”
“It is all very well empowering people when they are of sound mind, coherent, well, know what is happening and can see every side of it. That is my only concern and I hope the Minister of State appreciates that.”
“They expressed concern in relation to this cohort of 16- and 17-year-olds. Who is their advocate with their best interests? They are exceptionally vulnerable. That is the point I am making. I do not want us to sign up to something only to be told later that we agreed to something under amendment No. 4. That is my concern. If the Minister of State tells me there are no concerns, I will sit down today and check it in the morning. I will go back to these people and ask them to provide me with the information. Although they shared information with me already, I wish to be sure to be sure that I do not quote people out of context. What is the Minister of State’s knowledge about the concerns regarding this cohort of people aged 16 and 17?”
“When I get moving later in this Bill, I will tell the Minister of State about three amendments that were ruled out. I will talk about them later rather than raise them now because I want to stay focused. Talk about the Minister of State being disappointed - I and others will be disappointed. Let us deal with what we are dealing with now, however. The Minister of State thinks and has taken advice that this is important. That is why she is bringing it to us to consider and accept or reject. That is our prerogative. I wish to tease this out. I want the Minister of State to share with the House the advice or concerns she received. Is she telling me that no one expressed concern about vulnerable groups of people? I will have to go back to the people, who may be listening in tonight, who spoke to me about this today.”
“I know people who worked in Oberstown who could not cope and had to leave. There are major challenges. I have spoken to people who have told me they have concerns. The Minister of State is correct. A lot of people would see this as a positive step. I believe in empowering many of our citizens, regardless of what age they are and within reason of their capacity, to advocate for themselves. The reality is that, as the Minister of State knows better than most, these are exceptionally vulnerable people. The Minister of State also said that the Bill will take care of them. The Bill will not take care of them, nor did the previous Bill. There are many Acts on the Statute Book that are sitting gathering dust on the shelves and have not protected people. We will have a Bill with a load of aspirations in it.”
“I would not like it to go out here that the Minister of State or anybody else here thought it did not matter, because I know she thinks it matters, as do I. They are exceptionally vulnerable. Unfortunately, many have already been in care and have no confidence in a supposed advocacy service. Many people in working in care do not want them there. This is the reality. They are not wanted in care. They may have addiction problems. They have low self-esteem. They may have been living on the streets from the age of 14 or 15. That is the reality of Dublin and other parts of our country. I have met them. I have been in night shelters and have walked the streets with key community workers who deal with this cohort. I have also been involved in the Prison Service, juvenile detention centres, etc.”
“We have loads of time. This goes back to the issue raised by Senator Ruane. The Minister of State said it does not matter if someone is on the streets or wherever else. That is not to disparage the Minister of State; I do not suggest she was disparaging in her remarks, but it does matter. There is hardly a day I walk around Dublin without meeting 16- and 17-year-olds who are homeless and suffer from problems with addiction and mental health having fallen out of care, including State care. They are vulnerable. I know what the Minister of State is saying about 16- and 17-year-olds. Everybody can be vulnerable at some point in their life, but these people are exceptionally vulnerable and it matters that they are on our streets.”
“Who is protecting and advocating for that vulnerable group that may be in State care, have been thrown out of State care or fallen out of State care by their own actions? I would like to know more about the advice the Minister of State was given.”
“It is no good for us to agree this and have a problem later on. The issue is who is advocating for somebody who is very unwell at 16 or 17 years of age and may not have the ordinary supports that many of us have. There may be people who purport to be acting in the interests of a child – we must never lose sight of the fact that they are children in law. Children aged 16 and 17 could be vulnerable on a number of fronts. What protections will be in place? What advice did the Minister of State receive on this? Did it concern her that a number of people raised this matter with her Department, in particular capacity in respect of 16 and 17-year-olds who are exceptionally vulnerable? In some cases, these children are living on our streets. That is the reality.”
“I will come back to the Minister of State on capacity. We are talking about people who may suffer from acute mental illness. They may have already been in some form of State care. They may not have parents, for that matter. They may or may not have advocates. This relates to advocacy. Who is the guardian or advocate for someone who is very unwell at 16 or 17 years of age? I know the Minister of State has received advice on this and there are concerns. If we accept the amendment, we are stitching this into the legislation. While it is all very well to say the amendment is technical, the fact that the Minister is asking for the amendment is significant. Those who have given her legal advice and parliamentary draftsmen have thought about that and clearly made a strong case for the amendment to be included in the Bill.”
“That is what I mean. I am referring to 16- and 17-year-olds. The Department of justice in other legislation defines a 16 or 17-year-old as a child. That is the law. There is legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor on this. There is litigation and trial cases. It is very clear that a 16- or 17-year-old is a child in terms of an offence. What was the advice received by the Minister of State on that? I ask the Minister of State to tell me her understanding of what a child is, in terms of age.”
“I wish to clarify the Minister of State's understanding of what a child is. A child is someone aged zero to 18. The Bill proposes to amend this to 16 years of age, therefore 17 and 18-year-olds would be out of this category.”
“It has full support. There are many issues in relation to legislation that might have the support of the Department of children and we would not always necessarily agree. It does not get it right all the time. None of us gets it right all the time. I take it in good faith. The Minister of State might touch on exactly the nuance or the difference in relation to care orders.”
“I thank the Minister of State for that. That is what she is telling us. I take her in good faith and I accept that. Again, I can see the logic. Had we had a little rationale on that a day ago, we might have been able to tease out more issues and work constructively with the Minister of State. I take what she is saying in good faith. Of course, that was drafted and presented to her by the Department of children. She is saying there is no difference or nuance in relation to the care orders. She might just address the issue around the care orders. What is the difference, the tidying up, the nuance around care orders? It would be more helpful for all sides in this debate if we had a little memo or a briefing note on each of those. I am taking it in good faith that the Minister of State believes it to be just a simple tidying-up exercise.”
“It could be for 16- and 17-year-olds, or longer. In the course of my research into this work I spoke to mental health care nurses, psychiatrists and psychologists, who pointed out all the problems. I acknowledge their significant frustration in trying to operate within the service. That is the feedback. We are on the same page. We are not at each other. We are going to tease it out. This is Committee Stage. I will not apologise if I stand up here 30 times for every section if I need to do so to seek clarification. I thank the Minister of State for committing herself to give that time. I send a message to the Acting Chair and to everybody in this House. This is our Chamber. We have many days. We can extend our times. We can work longer hours in this Seanad, but let us get this legislation right.”
“We have family members who have experienced difficulties in getting access to CAMHS. We have seen people commit suicide as a result of not getting access to CAMHS or other mental healthcare services. We have seen patients with mental health issues going to the accident and emergency department, which is not the right place for them to go. I know of families whose hearts are broken trying to get support for people with mental health issues. It has been on the Government's watch for a hell of a long time. The Minister of State is not here to remind me and I am not here to point that out. I do not doubt her absolute commitment. That is an important point. I accept it is complex; we do not need to be told it is complex. I accept it is landmark, important and complex legislation. I welcome what the Minister of State said about ECTs.”