Before the Minister responds, I have a message relating to distinguished guests in the Distinguished Guests Gallery. I welcome H.E Betty Escorcia Baquero, the Colombian ambassador; the deputy dead of mission, Carlos Padrón; third secretary, Sergio Ramírez; and economic officer, Carlos Jiménez. They are all very welcome and I hope they enjoy their morning at our debate. I thank them for visiting this House.

Why has rent been going up over the years? It is simple. It is because of a lack of supply. What we are doing now is making the decisions that bring certainty to the market and bring certainty to tenants through security of tenure. For the first time in the history of the State, we are bringing security of tenure. That is normal in almost every other country in Europe. We are doing these things to drive the supply. That is what this about. If you do not get more supply, rents are never coming down. Rents are only going in one direction. They will go up and up unless we increase the supply of apartments and homes across this country. We are already seeing the momentum coming back behind the decision I have announced I am making. We are seeing an increase in commencements and seeing an increase in the applications for planning permission.

There is a kind of short-term populism of Members are pretending are defending the tenants. For me, renters are not just people who renting right now; it is all those people who are at home and who need somewhere to rent. By driving supply, you provide the accommodation for people to be able to move out, but you also drive down the rents.

When are rents going to fall?

Rents are directly linked to a lack of supply of homes. As usual, what we are not hearing from the Opposition parties at all is any alternative solution. Where are they getting their supply from? One in three euro of capital funding in this State is earmarked for housing and housing delivery. We hear calls from Opposition parties for more funding to go into it, but they will never say what they are going to cut. Where will they take the capital funding from? Is it from schools, roads or healthcare? That is never said. It is just spend more, spend more.

Record funding is going in to housing. The reason, by the way, that we have record funding is our stewardship of the economy as well. Simply spending more is never the answer in and of itself.

I want to see the average length of tenancies that people have go up and they will go up as a result of these decisions because it is going to be much harder for landlords to evict people for new tenancies going forward. We are going to see an extension of that through the security of tenure as well. This protects renters and it also drives investment in the delivery of homes.

What we are not hearing from the Opposition is what their alternative is or how they are going to deliver the homes. They do not want private finance to deliver the homes so they will not say where the finance is coming from into it. Opposition Members seem to think that anything to do with bringing private finance into delivery is a dirty word. We are driving the supply. I appreciate they are going to oppose it and they are going to scaremonger among renters in relation to it, but, if we do not do this-----

They are scared of the Minister and rising rents.

-----rents are going to go up and up and up. The only solution the Deputy has put forward is a rent freeze. We know that does not work. We know all the international evidence is there that it does not work. All a rent freeze is a short-term populist move that is no benefit in terms of getting people the homes they need to live in, so we are making the necessary decisions to drive home delivery in this country.

The only certainty the Government is going create with this legislation is that hard-pressed renters who are paying rip-off rents are going to have to pay even more. That is the only certainty. There is an alternative. We have set it out over and over again, which is to temporarily ban rent increases, put money back into renters' pockets and deliver the kind of supply that renters need.

How did that go in Berlin?

Increase investment in social homes and increase investment in genuinely affordable homes. Increase support for the SME builder-developer sector to build homes for working people to buy. The Minister will not do any of those things. Instead, at the behest of the large corporate institutional investors, he is allowing for a market reset and that will do one thing and one thing only. It will mean a small increase in high-density, high-end, high-price private rental, which is not a solution to the crisis. We have set out the alternatives. We have showed the Minister how it will be costed, but the only people it is listening to is its old pals in Irish institutional property, one of whom is the former general secretary of his party, who asked for what? He asked for a market reset, reduced apartment standards and a VAT cut that nobody needs. What is the consequence? Renters will be screwed again and we will highlight this month after month, year after year, as supply does not increase but rents do. This is on the Minister and we will oppose this legislation tooth and nail.

The Minister talks about the Opposition not coming forward with solutions. I have been in this House over a year now. Time and again, we have come forward with amendments to legislation. The Government brings the Bill in, takes Committee and Remaining Stages very quickly in the House and guillotines it. We do not even have time with certain legislation to discuss the substantive amendments.

I want to ask the Minister a very specific question on the proposed legislation. Notwithstanding his views on a rent freeze, which I do not agree with, would he accept an amendment to the Bill to allow for a rent break? He talks about policy certainty. Landlords, renters and investors need policy certainty, but we need policy certainty that if rents go to a certain level, something will kick in to stop them rising further. This is something that was in the report the Government's own TDs signed off on following pre-legislative scrutiny and it is something that Threshold has called for. Will the Minister accept an amendment in relation to an emergency rent break if rents go above a certain level?

I made it very clear and the Minister knows that we have alternatives. We set out a State fund that would actually increase funding for, not vulture funds but public affordable housing. The Government is completely out of touch and the Minister is too, to be honest. He has been captured. He has gone into the Ministry for housing and been captured by the investor funds. This is how clear it is that he has been captured. His Department is taking part in an event that is being billed as a global meeting point for global investors. The Department is setting up an "Irish Pavilion" for executives from international investment houses alongside Ministers. The Minister is working with the institutional investors to bring more funding in here that will be used to build more build-to-rent units that people cannot afford, bring more vulture funds to buy up properties and apartment blocks.

This housing approach has not worked. It is not going to work. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Government is introducing a measure that it knows will lead to higher rents. Will the Minister answer the following question: does he accept that these measures are going lead to higher rents? He is so disconnected from people. There is going to be significant public backlash to this because people will see what the reality is. It is a decision for investors funds and that is why the Government is allowing rents to rise.

These lines are on repeat from the Opposition. Deputy Ó Broin keeps coming back in and saying that Sinn Féin has provided alternatives and never repeats them. The reason he never repeats is they were soundly rejected by the people-----

I repeat them every week.

-----in the general election. It is the same old line. He says them again and again, but he actually does not.

That is not true. You actually lied in the election. You said you would build 40,000 homes. You never did it.

My understanding is that there are rules against what the Deputy has just accused me of.

You are misleading the House and your party lied during the election. Those are the facts.

I understand there are rules in the House of what the Deputy has just accused me of. I am asking for a decision.

Will the Deputy withdraw those remarks?

It is a matter of public record. Fianna Fáil, Deputies Darragh O'Brien, Micheál Martin and Simon Harris. and Paschal Donohoe lied about housing completions during the election.

Deputy Ó Broin.

We have the evidence. It has been proved.

Deputy, will you address your remarks through the Chair? If you do not conclude your crossfire with the Minister when you are asked to do so, you will be asked to leave the Chamber.

I shall respect the Chair.

That is all I ask you to do. You can make your point as robustly as you like. You know the rules of the House in relation to the comments that were made. I cannot enforce those rules. It is up to the Deputies to decide whether you are going to withdraw the remarks or whatever the Minister is requesting-----

The truth is the truth.

-----but I ask you to please conduct the debate in a civil and mannerly way.

And in an honest manner.

That is fine

It is important to point out that Deputy Ó Broin's own leader has consistently and repeatedly made accusations against my own leader in relation to using the very phrase that I am accusing him of making, yet he is happy to come in here and use the same phrase repeatedly. Maybe he get a party policy position on the use of that word in here, which the Taoiseach absolutely denies using. As usual, there are double standards and we have it from the Deputy.

The use of that kind of language epitomises the fact that the Deputy has no answers, his aim being to make headline accusations-----

The headlines were true.

-----that can be put on an Twitter account and, as he is doing, to throw as much mud as possible in relation to-----

The Minister's party lied during the general election campaign.

Deputy Ó Broin, wait for a minute. Can we just-----

Sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but the Minister's party lied during the general election campaign and was-----

He will not even answer the question.

Can we move to answering the questions-----

I am answering the accusation.

-----and leave this crossfire behind us?

He is defending the indefensible: rising rents and Government dishonesty. Well done, Minister.

The constant personalisation that comes from the Opposition is very insightful.

No. I am criticising the Minister’s policy failures.

We are going to drive investment in this country to deliver the supply. The Deputy says he wants to drive investment but does not say where it will come from.

Yes, I do. The Minister should debate me on radio at any time and I will explain it to him again.

The State has maximised the investment. The Deputy has never set out where he would get the additional billions of euro we need to deliver the homes.

We have set it out year after year.

We will drive down rents and get the homes the people need-----

He should publish the evidence that it will drive down rents. He has none.

-----by driving the supply in terms of delivery.

Deputy Ó Broin has no respect for the Chair or this House.

I have no respect for a Minister who is presiding over record homelessness, record rents and a record housing crisis.

Order, please, Deputy Ó Broin.

In relation to Deputy Sheehan’s point-----

Minister-----

-----all proposals will be examined and given a fair assessment.

To resume some sort of order in the House, I ask the Minister to resume his seat. I am going to move to the next question, No. 139, in the name of Deputy Gould.

D'admhaigh cathaoirleach Bhord Bia go mbíonn a chomhlacht ag iompórtáil feola ón Bhrasaíl do mhargadh na hÉireann. Tá dualgas curtha ar fheirmeoirí cloí le caighdeáin timpeallachta, leasa agus rialacha atá ag dul in airde i gcónaí. Ag an am céanna, áfach, tá an cathaoirleach ar Bhord Bia, foras Stáit atá freagrach as bia, feoil agus feirmeoireacht na hÉireann a chur chun cinn, anois ceangailte le hiompórtáil feola ó earnáil nach mbíonn ag feidhmiú de réir na gcaighdeán céanna. Caithfidh an Rialtas an cathaoirleach a thógáil as a phost.

The chair of Bord Bia, the State agency charged with promoting Irish food, Irish beef and Irish farming is also the chief executive of Dawn Farm Foods, a company that has confirmed that it sources Brazilian beef for the Irish market. That fact alone should have set alarm bells ringing across government. Instead, we have seen evasion, minimisation and the circling of the wagons.

Bord Bia's credibility rests on public trust. It exists to champion Irish producers, Irish farmers and the reputation of Irish food at the highest international standards. How can that credibility possibly survive when its chair is simultaneously presiding over a company importing beef from Brazil, a sector repeatedly associated across Europe with food safety scares, traceability failures, animal welfare concerns and weak regulatory oversight? Brazilian beef has already had to be recalled from Irish supermarket shelves. It has been the subject of sustained and serious concern for years around growth hormones that are banned here, enforcement failures and standards that Irish farmers are rightly never allowed to fall below. Yet, at the very moment Irish farmers are being asked to meet even higher environmental and welfare and regulatory standards, the chair of Bord Bia is linked to imports from a sector that does not operate to those standards. This is not just poor optics. This is a fundamental conflict of interest, and it goes to the heart of public trust. The Government did not inherit this situation; the Government created this situation.

Mr. Murrin was appointed by Government to a position of public trust. This is not an internal board matter that can be parked, delayed or quietly discussed behind closed doors. It is a matter of ministerial responsibility and governance, and it comes at a time of deeply damaging wider context. Yesterday, in the European Parliament, Sinn Féin was key to securing a significant victory in referring the EU Mercosur deal to the European Court of Justice. Meanwhile, the Government’s own MEPs were working against that outcome. Against this backdrop, confidence in Bord Bia is essential. Yet, instead of recognising the seriousness of this issue, the Taoiseach chose yesterday to try to wave it away, accusing those who raised legitimate concerns in this House of dragging down a good organisation. Sinn Féín is not undermining Bord Bia; the Government is by defending the indefensible, by refusing to acknowledge an obvious conflict of interest and by sending a message that accountability stops at the door of powerful corporate figures. This is not about personalities. This is about protecting Irish farmers, consumer confidence and the integrity of Irish food promotion at home and abroad.

My question to the Tánaiste is simple and direct. Does he accept there is a fundamental conflict of interest in the chair of Bord Bia also being chief executive of a company importing Brazilian beef? If he does accept that, will the Government finally act and remove the chair from his position, or is it going to continue to defend a situation that is plainly untenable and expect farmers and the public to simply look the other way?

Hear, hear.

Let me begin by agreeing with the Deputy on one point, which is that Bord Bia is indeed an exemplary organisation. It is an organisation that is fulfilling its mandate with distinction and it is doing so at a time of huge geopolitical and geoeconomic uncertainty. Last year, we saw Irish agrifood exports exceed more than €21 billion. Bord Bia is, therefore, excelling. Bord Bia is doing an exceptional job. Considering that the vast amount of food we produce in this country is exported, its role is indeed vital. We saw only last week China open its markets to Irish beef, which is an example of the work done by Bord Bia, Government and Government agencies in terms of opportunities for Irish food.

Issues in relation to governance or conflicts of interest, perceived or real, are, indeed, important. I do not dispute that but so too is process. Process is extremely important. Far be it from the Deputy's framing of the situation, this morning, in fact, perhaps while we are in this Chamber, the board of Bord Bia is meeting and considering all of these matters. That is the appropriate, responsible, fair way of considering and examining any issue when it arises, not shouting and roaring at each other on the floor of this House.

Nobody is shouting and roaring.

That is the way business should be done. In fact, that is not just my view; it is actually the view of the president of the Irish Farmers Association. The Deputy wraps himself in the mantle of speaking for farmers. Their elected representative said in his statement yesterday that the correct forum to address this issue is with the chair and other directors at a board meeting. He also had the decency to say that he was then happy to await the outcome of that meeting to see what the answers were and hear from the chair before delivering his view. That is a responsible thing to do. That is also what the Minister for agriculture will do because the Minister has asked that he would receive a detailed report on all of these matters from Bord Bia directly following today's board meeting.

Far be it from any of the accusations or obfuscation or any of the words the Deputy threw at me or at the Government here, we are going to follow due process. This place is not a kangaroo court where we just come in and say, "Off with your head". We actually have boards. We have legislation. I have confidence in the board of Bord Bia to do its duty in examining any issues, perceived or real, that would arise and then give its view to the Minister in line with how this place operates and how Government operates. I have confidence in that process. I have confidence in the speed at which Bord Bia has convened its board meeting and, indeed, that the chair has sought an opportunity to engage with the board. The comments of the president of the IFA, Mr. Francie Gorman, in relation to that being the correct forum to address the issue is absolutely the right course of action.

The legislation is very clear. The Minister has the power to remove the chair. Indeed, the board on its own does not have that power. It needs the consent of the Minister. There are a number of facts that are undisputable.

The chair of Bord Bia, the State agency responsible for promoting Irish food at the highest international standards, is also the director of a company that is importing Brazilian beef. Another fact is that Brazilian beef had to be recalled just in the past months from Irish shelves. Another fact is that Brazilian beef that was in Ireland in the past number of months had hormones that are banned in the European Union. The other fact is the chair of that company, who acknowledges that his company imports Brazilian beef for the Irish market, is the chair appointed by the Government as head of Bord Bia.

The issue here is there has to be credibility, good faith and accountability. With all the facts we know now, which are undisputed even by the chair himself, does the Tánaiste have confidence in him to continue as chair of Bord Bia when he acknowledges his company is importing beef from a region that does not live up to the same standards as Irish farmers the length and breadth of this State are required to and, if they do not comply with those standards, are heavily penalised for doing so?

You are at it again, Deputy, and you have done it in this House so many times. You just come in, say somebody's name and call for them to be sacked. Do you remember your leader did that with a former Garda Commissioner and how badly that backfired on your party?

Hear, hear.

Due process matters. Just because the Deputy has read a headline or heard this or that: what is the purpose of a board of directors if the Deputy does not actually want it to have met this morning. It is meeting right now. Can he wait a few minutes? Can he wait for board members to sit down, have a conversation and then report to the Minister, or does it have to be now, in time for the 1 o'clock news? Come on now, let us have a little bit of fairness here. This shoot first and ask questions later, that the Deputy's party is steeped in, does not serve democracy well.

I have every confidence in the process. I have every confidence in Bord Bia to discharge its duty and in the board of Bord Bia to discharge its corporate governance duties. I have every confidence in our excellent Minister for agriculture to respond to any detailed report he receives from the board.

Do you have confidence in the chair?

We have confidence in a process. Process matters. I know process, democracy and all of that are really inconvenient. Kangaroo courts are much easier but actually allowing somebody an opportunity to talk and answer questions and a board to give a considered view is how this Government functions, and that is a stark difference between this Government and our responsible politics and your populism.

Do you have confidence in the chair?

Let the process commence.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Ask Máiría Cahill.

Protect your own. Do as I say, not as I do.

Deputy Doherty, please. I call Deputy Kelly.

Yesterday, at the media committee, we had testimony from Gráinne Seoige in relation to her experiences during the general election and subsequently. It was harrowing and I thank her for coming forward. We have all heard of many other cases of what has happened to many people, mostly women, in regard to AI tools and social media companies. In fact, I would call them publishers. They are not platforms; they are actually e-commerce companies. They make money and this is how they make money.

We need to think about how we are going to deal with this. People have come to me and to many others in this Chamber as well. We need robust legislation. The simple fact of the matter is that technology is moving so fast, it is very difficult for any Legislature, including us, to keep up. We in the Labour Party believe there is a lacuna in the law, particularly regarding how AI- or computer-generated sexualised images of adults are being created and then distributed. We have decided as a party we need to bring in legislation to deal with this.

Today, I am publishing the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences (Amendment) Bill 2026. It is basically an update to Coco's Law, which our party brought forward and which a Minister sitting opposite finally got through the Oireachtas. It provides amendments to Coco's Law to change the definition of intimate images to include AI- or computer-generated images. It also creates a new offence of creating such an image of a person without the consent of that person. Third, and crucially, borrowing from law on child sexual abuse, it makes it an offence to knowingly facilitate the generation of such images for the purposes of publication or sharing.

This is critical legislation. It will deal with the e-commerce companies as publishers. Yesterday, the testimony was that when Gráinne Seoige went to the Garda, at the end of all the chasing, gardaí came up against an individual who would not give over their phone. Ms Seoige would have had to look for a court order. How long was that going to take and was it practical? Ultimately, this needs to be dealt with at publisher-e-commerce company level. This legislation deals with the individual but it also deals with the company.

I do not care whether the Government takes this Bill and changes it, improves it or whatever. I am calling on it to engage with the legislation. We do not have time for this to go on and on. I ask that in the coming weeks, working collectively with us and whomever else wants to be involved, we bring into law a change to deal with this lacuna and ensure the publishers - the e-commerce companies - will be dealt with by the law for facilitating such behaviour.

I thank Deputy Kelly for his leadership on this issue. I acknowledge his Bill and thank him for the role the committee he chairs is playing in this regard. I, too, commend Gráinne Seoige on going before the committee. In recent times, what we have seen in relation to Grok and the use of AI to undress and produce nudified images is dehumanising, degrading and disgusting. There absolutely is an onus on all of us in the House - as the Deputy rightly says, it is not a party political issue - to come together to respond. I commit today that the Government absolutely will engage constructively with him on his Bill. My colleagues Deputies Boland, Butterly and Keogh are also producing a Bill on this issue. I am sure all parties in the House are considering how best to grapple with it.

I want to say a couple of things on the record of the House to be helpful in terms of working out where gaps may exist and where there is legal clarity. I acknowledge the huge work done on Coco's Law by the Minister, Deputy McEntee, during her time in the Department of justice. The sharing of non-consensual intimate images and the production and-or sharing of images, whether AI-generated or not, is illegal in Ireland under Coco's Law. The latest figures show around 99 cases in respect of sections 2, 3 or 4 of the Act have been taken between its commencement in 2021 and the end of 2023. We have seen 23 cases prosecuted on indictment in the Circuit Court.

However, the Deputy is right about the technology moving so fast. It was always envisaged, at both domestic and EU level, that we would have to continue to review laws and ensure they keep pace with technology. That is why the Taoiseach and I convened a meeting this week with several Ministers and also with Coimisiún na Meán and with the Attorney General. The Minister for communications, Deputy O'Donovan, working with the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, is committed to bringing proposals forward to the Cabinet within the next few weeks.

I have another suggestion, which I make to be constructive. Under the EU's AI Act, there is a list of prohibited practices. Our own advisory council has suggested that we as a country should seek the amendment of Article 5 of the Act by expanding it to include the prohibition of AI practices that allow users to generate non-consensual intimate images. My understanding is that under Article 112(1) of the Act, the European Commission must carry out an annual assessment of whether the Article 5 prohibited practices list should be amended and to report its finding to both the European Parliament and the Council - in other words, to try to create a mechanism to keep the prohibited list up to date.

Yes, let us work domestically. Yes, let us work to see what legislative changes may be required here in Ireland, and we will work constructively on that. Let us also ask our representatives at European level and, indeed, the Irish Presidency later this year to work to see whether we can amend the AI Act, alongside the work we should and will do in this country to improve our own legislation.

I thank the Tánaiste. I am worried when I hear him talk about the Irish European Presidency. That is five months away but we do not have five weeks. He mentioned the volume of cases. How many will end up going to the very end to a prosecution? We have a situation whereby if we do not bring in legislation, this continuous sexualisation without their consent of women and men and the sharing of those images will continue and will not be prosecuted, unless we act now.

That is a fact. That is why we are bringing this forward. It does not have to be our Bill but ultimately if we do not deal with this in a timely manner people are going to end up suffering. We were given evidence yesterday that since she went forward the amount of times this image has been shared has multiplied. We in the Labour Party are bringing forward this Bill to deal with this once and for all. We cannot have a situation where An Garda Síochána is going around the country trying to chase mobile phones it cannot get its hands on. It is not resource-practical. We need to cut it out at the e-commerce publisher level and this Bill does that. I ask the Government to please work with us to ensure it can be brought in in the coming weeks. I do not care if the Government brings it in or I do but somebody must bring it in.

Just in case there is any confusion I am agreeing with the Deputy in principle entirely that the responsibility here has to be on the company. The way that has been transposed into national legislation has been under the infrastructure of the AI Act. This Government will work constructively with the Deputy, with his party and with his committee on any improvements or changes we can make to Irish legislation. I too do not care where the idea comes from or who has the good idea or the best idea because we all want to do the same thing. What we have seen here is dehumanising, degrading and disgusting. It has had a real, profound impact on many people in the country and across the world. People have been directly impact and there is also the chilling and general disgusting feel people have sensed from the abuse of technology and from AI. We need to act and we will act. The committee hearing yesterday was a useful and important starting point. The recommendations of our AI advisory group are also good. These are the experts in this area. That is why we convened our meeting this week. It is why the Minister is due to report to Government. I will ask the Minister to proactively engage with Deputy Kelly and all the Opposition parties because we need to pull together on this and show Ireland can absolutely lead in innovation but we can also lead in protecting our values, protecting children, protecting women and making sure technology is never abused.

Donald Trump's Board of Peace was billed as a body that would oversee governance and reconstruction in Gaza. However, its proposed charter does not even mention Gaza. Instead it gives a broad mandate to resolve global conflicts. Given the list of people who have signalled they will join it is clear the outfit should be renamed the board of autocrats and war criminals. Included in their number are Netanyahu, Putin and Lukashenko. To highlight the absurdity of this travesty, Netanyahu is unable to attend a signing ceremony for the Board of Peace today because as an indicted war criminal he fears being arrested if he turns up in Davos.

As more and more concerning details emerge about Trump's Board of Peace one thing is clear, which is that this has little to do with peace in Gaza and everything to do with destroying the UN and making the world less secure and safe. For that reason a number of European countries have already said they will not be signing up. Among their number are Sweden, Norway, France, Slovenia and now the UK but incredibly the Tánaiste's Government is still apparently mulling over whether or not it should sign up. This begs the question of whether there is any outrage perpetrated by Trump that the Government is willing to take a strong and principled stand on.

The Tánaiste's Government's failure to rule out joining Trump's gang of war criminals is just the latest example of failing to live up to its words. On Sunday the Taoiseach strongly hinted the occupied territories Bill was dead in the water. He defended the inexcusable delay in enacting this supposedly priority legislation. He effectively ruled out services being included in the Bill if it moves forward and he stressed the Government was pivoting more to the peace process approach in Gaza citing, incredibly, the creation of Trump's Board of Peace. The Taoiseach also highlighted our continued support for the UN and UNRWA, which I strongly agree with. However, this week the Israeli Government razed an UNRWA facility to the ground in the occupied territories. This was an utterly outrageous act. Israel is still murdering Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank with complete impunity. Donald Trump is trying to herald in a new era of chaos, division and adversity. We need to stand firm against Trump as he seeks to legitimise war criminals. Will the Tánaiste categorically rule out any involvement in Trump's so-called Board of Peace? Does this Government have any intention of enacting the occupied territories Bill?

I thank Deputy O'Callaghan very much for raising the matter. Just to remind all of us, including myself, the original idea in relation to a Board of Peace – I will get to what I think are the very serious issues with it – arose from the comprehensive plan to end the Gaza conflict which on 17 November received support from the United Nations. On 17 November the United Nations voted to adopt a resolution endorsing the comprehensive plan and it was envisaged that as the next stage of that plan there would be the formation of some form of board to assist in advancing it. Of course Ireland and many other countries around Europe and the world were eager to play a constructive role. A country like Ireland can of course bring to that table significant experience in conflict resolution, decommissioning, respect for international law and our long-standing commitment to a two-state solution. That is the context.

Let me also be very clear what we are seeing today at this signing ceremony could not be further removed from that original conversation and the Deputy’s comments are right about the lack of reference to Gaza and the very serious red flags. Anything Putin is considering joining with the word “peace” in it does not sit well. The cost of $1 billion to join does not sit well and also anything that in any way seeks to undermine, replace or usurp the United Nations is not something the Government would support and I do not think it is something Dáil Éireann or the people of Ireland would support either. There are very significant governance issues with it as well, including that, as envisaged, the charter suggests the President of the United States – as in the current incumbent – would be the chair and that person would also have the ability to designate his successor and appoint, remove and renew members of the executive, so you could pay the $1 billion and be kicked off the thing. There is a whole range of very serious issues here. What the Taoiseach is doing on behalf of the Government by not turning up at the signing ceremony today is entirely responsible. I was at a meeting of EPP leaders yesterday and no European leader has turned up at the signing ceremony bar President Trump’s ally, if you like, Prime Minister Orbán of Hungary. It is our expectation that at the European Council dinner this evening of European heads of state and heads of government that this issue will further be considered.

I am not suggesting Deputy O’Callaghan is but I would not like to see our position in any way misrepresented. We have not joined the board, we did not turn up at the signing ceremony but we are obviously going to discuss it with our EU colleagues because Europe needs to stand united in supporting the primacy of the United Nations and making sure we get the focus back here to what was meant to be phase 2 of the peace plan for Gaza. My colleague, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, who is here with us, was in the Middle East last week, I believe. She was at the Rafah crossing seeing for herself the impact of Irish humanitarian aid - of funding from the people of this country - but also seeing what more can and must be done. The Taoiseach was right to make the point Ireland is very eager to see how we can play a practical role in trying to help alleviate the most horrific humanitarian situation.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Tánaiste. The stated position, therefore, of the Government on Trump's so-called Board of Peace is that it is considering its response. That has been the stated position up to now. Will the Tánaiste rule out, unequivocally and categorically, that Ireland will not be involved in any shape or form with this travesty Trump is putting forward? Will he do that and do that now? That is what I am asking him to do. Let us not have any ambiguity about it. The Tánaiste should say on behalf of the Irish Government we will have no involvement whatsoever in this travesty and rule it out categorically.

On the occupied territories Bill, the Tánaiste promised this Dáil a number of months ago the Bill would be brought to the House by the end of November last year but it still has not happened. When is it going to happen and is it going to include goods and services?

Unlike some governments around the world I do not stand up and single-handedly make decisions and announce them without engagement with colleagues. My personal view and the view of Government colleagues is that we cannot see any scenario in which Ireland can participate in the so-called Board of Peace as currently constructed. Of course, it would be a very different situation were we back to where the UN was on 17 November in terms of countries genuinely coming together in a board to genuinely try to help move phase 2 of a resolution to the horrific conflict and indeed genocide we have seen in Gaza. Process does matter. I do not want to be argumentative on this but we heard calls in this House that the Government should introduce retaliatory tariffs and hit the Trump administration.

Thank God we did not take that advice. We worked through the process with our European colleagues and we managed to get to a situation where additional tariffs were not imposed and managed to calm down the economic situation, so process matters. Allowing the Government the opportunity to sit down with our European colleagues to discuss and tease through a European response to global issues is sometimes a prudent thing to do.

What about the occupied territories Bill?

On the occupied territories Bill, the position is as outlined by the Taoiseach. The Minister received the Attorney General's advice just before Christmas. She has gone back with further questions and we will engage with the Oireachtas on it in due course.

An estimated 4,500 people have been reported killed during the latest round of protests in Iran. This figure could be more than 12,000 when all the figures have been checked. This follows 2022 protests when 551 people, including 68 children, were confirmed killed. In 2019, up to 1,500 people were killed. In 2017-18, 41 protesters were killed. In 2009, 70 protesters were killed. These are only the numbers of those killed in documented protests and crackdowns by this murderous and undemocratic regime. It does not include executions after unfair trials or political prisoners' deaths in custody.

Iran has significantly increased its executions in recent years and now reportedly carries out more than half of all executions in the world outside China. Last year saw a record number of executions and it looks like this number could be dwarfed this year, even with some of the recent postponements. This regime is brutal and, for example, recently took part in a raid of the Imam Khomeini Hospital, carried out by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, which answers directly to the Ayatollah. A nurse on site shared information that the IRGC beat patients who were wounded, staff and families with batons. The glass entrances were smashed and they stormed the wards with tear gas. Children in the paediatric wards also suffered intense beatings. This attack on the hospital is one example of a crime against humanity.

I note that Ireland raises the issue of the death penalty privately and bilaterally in contacts with Iranian leaders and officials in Ireland and Iran, including in the last round of political consultations with representatives of the Iranian foreign ministry held in 2024. We also do so publicly and multilaterally and in the UN General Assembly Human Rights Council, but now it has gone to another level. In this context, it is good to see the European Parliament has a forthcoming plenary vote on a resolution concerning the repression of protesters in Iran. Will the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach be asking Irish MEPs to support this resolution?

I also note that recently the accreditation ceremony for the new Iranian ambassador was postponed. Will it be postponed indefinitely, given the situation? On a related note, I would also like to know what contacts, if any, the Irish Government has with opposition groups based in and outside Iran, including those who claim to be in a position to form a provisional government pending free and fair elections.

Has the Irish Government called for the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, unilaterally or in an EU context? The Iranian people I have met are a warm, friendly and inclusive bunch. They, unfortunately, followed one murderous dictatorship with another theocratic brutal regime. None of the elections held in recent years were free or fair in any way. In this context, it is important for the international community to take a stand.

I agree with the Deputy. I am also grateful to him for raising the issue of Iran. It is not raised nearly often enough in this House. The brutal, disgusting repression we have seen of the brave Iranian protesters should be called out, as should the heroism of those protesters, who are standing up for their future and the aspiration they rightly have to live in a free, safe and democratic country and to have a better future for them, their children and grandchildren. It is an aspiration shared by every political party in this House and by the people of Ireland. We stand in solidarity with the brave protesters of Iran and will work at all levels, nationally and internationally, through all multilateral institutions and through our membership of the European Union to continue to shine a spotlight on the horrific brutality of the Iranian regime and the importance of standing in solidarity and support, and looking for demonstrable ways to show our support for those exercising their right to protest. In this country, we stand for freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and access to information and these rights must be fully respected. The brutal regime in Iran can cut the Internet, but the genie is out of the bottle. The people of the world have seen the brutality of the Iranian regime. It is there for all to see. While it has tried to silence the protesters, it has failed and will fail.

We call on the Iranian authorities to refrain from violence, to immediately restore communications and to uphold the fundamental rights of all Iranians, but we say so knowing this is not a regime that has shown any interest in doing that. That is why the Iranian ambassador designate was invited to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on 12 January, for our concerns to be strongly conveyed to the regime in Tehran. We remain concerned about Iran's malign role in the region, specifically its support of armed non-state actors, or terrorists, such as Hezbollah, the militias in Iraq and the Houthis. Ireland is also concerned about Iran's ongoing weapons and weapons-technology transfers to Russia in support of its war of aggression in Ukraine. Sometimes things can seem far away and distant, but there is a direct correlation between Iran providing technology to Russia, which is carrying out a war on the continent of Europe, and all the disruption it is causing and the fundamental violation of rights.

In common with the international community, Ireland wants to see a negotiated settlement that addresses worries about Iran's nuclear programme. There are already significant sanctions in place on Iran in relation to nuclear activities, the supply of weapons to Russia and specific human rights violations. The EU continues to review its sanctions policies. I would encourage an active review of the sanctions policy to see what more we can do at a European level. In principle, Ireland will support any additional sanctions for any violation of human rights and continue to review those proposals.

On some of the specific questions, I will ask the Minister and the Department of foreign affairs to come back to the Deputy with any detail. However, I share the Deputy's view. The Iranian community in Ireland wants to see a better future for their country and I want them to know the people of this country stand with them.

As the Tánaiste correctly said, this despotic regime funds terrorism and murder across the globe, including against our neighbours in Ukraine who have been subject to attacks by drones produced in Iran. I am conscious of the geopolitical context for any US Administration or Israeli attack. We have had lots of discussions about the occupied territories Bill and the genocide in Gaza and I have spoken on those, but Iran tends to get ignored in this context. The European Union needs to be careful about how we frame things. When the Cypriot ambassador was making a presentation to the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs yesterday, he pointed out the Middle East is one of Cyprus's priorities during its Presidency. Given our historic neutrality and our peacekeeping missions throughout the world, could Ireland continue this focus on conflicts in the Middle East, not only in Palestine, but also in countries like Iran and Sudan?

Absolutely. I forgot to say in my first answer that I will take a look at the wording of the European Parliament resolution because I am not familiar with it. However, the Deputy is right that when we talk about peace and stability in the Middle East, it is hard, or almost impossible, to have that conversation without also looking at the situation in Iran. While Ireland is neutral and will remain neutral, that means we are militarily unaligned. The principles we have in relation to international law, human rights, democracy, freedom of expression and support for freedom of assembly are not in any way in conflict with our military neutrality. In many ways, they are complementary to it. The Deputy can therefore be assured that as we prepare for our Presidency, one of the many tracks we will pursue - the Minister, Deputy McEntee, will be working up our programme for the track in relation to our values in international law - will involve keeping a firm focus on the Middle East, standing up for human rights and international law and ensuring we continue to call out the brutality being shown to peaceful protesters assembling for a better future for them and their families.

Under Standing Order 38A, I now call Deputy Carol Nolan.

For many years, we have seen reports of people in rural Ireland living in absolute fear due to an upsurge in trespassing on farmland by roaming gangs and those who are indifferent to private property rights. Every year, public meetings are held by farming organisations and every year, farmers and community members say the powers at the disposal of An Garda Síochána and landowners alike are deeply insufficient to address the nature of the problem. An Garda Síochána and landowners need our help, collectively as TDs, Ministers and Senators. We need to ensure there are tougher laws and legislative change. When I talk about trespassing, I am not talking about people who accidentally enter a property or come into a field, accidentally trespass and politely leave without causing any damage or intimidation.

I am not talking about those cases. I am talking about the worrying rise in deliberate and malicious cases of trespass incidents linked to illegal hunting such as lurching, gangs with dogs, physical threats, intimidation and damage to fences and vehicles. Farmers have routinely reported fears for personal safety. Many of them have called for a dedicated Garda rural crime unit, similar to those in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, to co-ordinate patrols and intelligence. I commend the IFA, which is very vocal on this issue and has put forward that solution, which I support.

In order to be constructive and to address this issue directly, after speaking with farmers and farm organisations, I brought forward the Criminal Justice (Trespass on Land) Bill 2025 last October. I believe this very short Bill could have a significant impact by introducing a greater level of legal clarity for farmers and landowners as well. This Bill would significantly expand the scope of the physical area captured within the law of trespass, capturing not just the land on which the farm buildings and curtilage of the buildings are situated but all the farm and agricultural land.

The important thing I want to raise today is that the plague of farm trespassing has to be dealt with urgently and effectively because it is causing much distress to farmers. We need immediate reform of the existing law of trespass. The time for tea and sympathy being offered to traumatised farm families is over. I ask the Government if it will commit to reforming the law of trespass as it pertains to agricultural land and farmland in particular, and if Government will commit to doing that during this Dáil term so that farming and rural families can feel more secure from the criminal threat that has impacted them for years.

The Deputy should conclude.

I commend my PA, David Mullins, and the OPLA, which was very helpful and encouraged me to bring forward the Bill I mentioned. That Bill is available as a template if the Government wishes to use it. I will play my part and I am happy to work with every party and none.

I thank Deputy Nolan for raising this issue and for the constructive way in which she has gone about it. It is a serious issue. I represent and have lived in County Wicklow all my life. I remember vividly the incident in 2023 when a farmer, Pat Dunne, was beaten up on his own land. I remember meeting with the IFA at Wicklow level and national level. This is a real issue that farmers are grappling with on a constant basis. Yes, there is a balance of rights - of course there is - and we always have to get that right. We all get that and farmers get that too. As a country and as a Government, through our local authorities and our State agencies we are investing an awful lot, quite rightly, in authorised walkways, whether they are greenways, blueways or cycleways. There has been huge investment and there needs to be more to make sure people can enjoy our countryside. It might be that this lessens even further the excuse for people to trespass, in any shape or form, on a farmers' land. We must work co-operatively, as we do, in partnership with farmers. The experience right around the country is that this works quite well.

As a country, we need to take a tougher approach on trespassing. As the Deputy said, we are not talking about somebody who accidentally does this. We are talking about the examples we have seen in parts of the country where the actions of people, on quads or anything else, are causing concern, fear and, on occasion, intimidation for people in rural Ireland, farmers and their families.

For the record, we have legislation already in place relating to trespassing. I share these details with the House to be useful. The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, as amended, has specific provisions regarding unauthorised entry onto or occupation of land. Part IIA of that Act - sections 19A to 19H, as inserted in 2002 - provides for offences in relation to illegal trespass and occupation of land, including public land provided or maintained by a statutory body or held in trust for the enjoyment of the public, and land covered by water. In that legislation, gardaí are given powers to direct trespassers to leave and to remove objects. It sets out offences, and penalties including fines on conviction of up to €4,000 or terms of imprisonment, or both.

The Department of justice, the Minister for justice and the Government are keeping this matter under review. It would be useful - I am trying to think of the best mechanism to bring it forward - to find a way to tease these issues through. Perhaps the Oireachtas justice committee could be a vehicle for this. I will certainly speak to the Minister for justice on that. In principle, I acknowledge that this is an issue that is causing a challenge. It was never right and is even less so when we are making such a conscious effort as a country to provide more opportunities for people to safely and legally enjoy the beautiful outdoors in Ireland. We need to listen carefully to the concerns of our rural community who feel their rights in terms of their own land are not being fully respected.

I thank the Tánaiste for his response and the co-operation, which we need urgently. While there is legislation in place, farmers and gardaí are telling me that it is insufficient because it is not giving them enough power. That is where we need to toughen those laws, which I know the Tánaiste is happy to do. He acknowledged that and it is certainly welcome.

However, there is another issue where the current legislation puts the onus on the farmer. A farmer who is possibly being intimidated by a gang - maybe their family is being intimidated too - is expected to get up in court and give evidence. There is a big problem there. As a farmer who endured a distressing ordeal said to me, it is putting the handcuffs on the landowner when they should be on the trespasser.

I want to mention a related issue that is becoming deeply disturbing. Farmers have informed me that dogs are being deliberately set on sheep. Earlier this week, Senator Paul Daly held an audiovisual room briefing about attacks on sheep. I have heard disturbing reports that this is being done deliberately. We need to crack down on and be much tougher on this issue.

There is an issue here, and potentially a legislative one. That is why we should keep the laws under review. We will engage constructively on the Deputy's Bill, and on any views from the Minister for justice, the Garda and others around the law. There is also an issue of enforcement because we are seeing - I am certainly hearing it more and more - attacks on sheep and the likes. There is a sense that sometimes this is being done to intimidate people to access their land.

We all live in the same country and we try to share this land. We all try to get on with our business in a respectful way. We want people to be able to go out and enjoy the countryside, to walk and to cycle. We want kids to enjoy the fresh air and explore the beauties of our country in all weather. We need to provide more safe and secure ways to do that by putting in proper walkways and proper routes in partnership with farmers and working with local authorities. Alongside that, we need to take a tougher approach when people do not respect the laws and trespass in a way that causes significant distress. I will ask the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, to revert to the Deputy directly.

The legal challenge initiated by Sinn Féin MEPs Lynn Boylan and Kathleen Funchion, and The Left group which includes Luke Ming Flanagan, to refer the Mercosur trade deal to the European Court of Justice was narrowly but thankfully won in the European Parliament yesterday. I commend them, and Deputy Kenny here, on their months and years of hard work. I stand here as a rural TD where farming matters, where food security matters and where environmental protection matters. The thing about rural people is that they say what they mean and they mean what they say. This is in complete contrast to the carry-on and the codology of the Government stance on Mercosur, which reached a pinnacle of extraordinary spectacle yesterday when half of Government MEPs voted against the referral to the ECJ test and half voted for it. The referral seeks to ascertain whether the agreement is in breach of EU law. What is it, Tánaiste? Is his party and the Government of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Lowry Independents for or against the Mercosur deal? It has now been suggested by Ursula von der Leyen that the provisional enactment of the deal should be put through. Is the Tánaiste going to stop that? How can Government stop it if it does not know what side it is on?

I know what side the Government is on. The Deputy is engaging in what our counterpart across the Atlantic Ocean would call "fake news." This Government opposed the Mercosur agreement.

They voted.

No, Deputy. You had your say. Allow me to speak too. In a democracy, allow me to speak too.

Deputy Conway-Walsh, please.

This is not a kangaroo court. You speak and I speak. Thank you. You made an assertion and I am going to answer it very clearly. The Government voted against the Mercosur agreement. There was no vote yesterday in the European Parliament on the Mercosur agreement. Do you know what there should have been? There should have been a "Yes" or "No" vote.

What people have done by saying to the courts, "Will you have a look at it?", is injected uncertainty for up to two years for Irish farmers and European farmers, at a time of enough uncertainty.

We blocked it.

Do you know what vote I would have liked to take place yesterday? A "Yes" or "No" vote.

We blocked it, which the Government failed to do.

I have never needed, as a parliamentarian, the courts to tell me what way to vote.

We blocked it, which the Government failed to do.

I wanted a situation where MEPs of all sides had a chance to vote "Yes" or "No", not run off to the courts for the next two years.

We blocked it.

Do not misrepresent our position. We know exactly where we stand. This Government has the backs of farmers but it does not believe in performative politics.

A total of 190 people died tragically on our roads last year, the highest level in ten years. There have been a few events in recent weeks that undermine people's faith in this Government's and this State's commitment to road safety at an institutional level. The Minister for Transport stated in a response to me last week that there is only so much the State can do and that driver behaviour is a big issue. I agree that driver behaviour is a huge issue but that is no surprise because we have little to no enforcement on our roads. This Government is stalling on simple measures like red light cameras and lower urban speed limits. There were supposed to be 150 new roads policing gardaí over the last two years but I understand that, at best, we have another 91. I would like a commitment from this Government that additional resources will be provided to An Garda Síochána so that we can enforce the rules of the road to the highest extent possible and stamp out increasingly dangerous driving.

Hear, hear.

I thank Deputy Ahern for raising this issue. We are going in the wrong direction in relation to road safety. The Deputy's comments are fair. There is a whole multitude of reasons including a level of increased distraction in the car as well as more cars on our roads but there are also legitimate issues around enforcement of existing legislation. It might be useful to find a way very soon in this House to explore how best we can all assist in trying to address this issue. Of course, driver behaviour is an issue but the Government and An Garda Síochána will play their part in terms of additional resourcing for roads policing. I will ask the Minister for justice to revert to the Deputy directly with an update on the latest figures in relation to gardaí in this area and on how we believe we can make more progress.

The Minister for education, Deputy Naughton, has said that the use of Grok to create sexualised images of women and child sex abuse material is "very concerning". She went on to say that we need to make sure that we tackle it and keep our young people safe. I wholeheartedly agree with her and I am sure the Tánaiste does too. Can the Tánaiste explain why the Department of Education and Youth is still posting images of children on X? Given what we know about what is happening on that platform, how can we possibly justify using it? Ironically, the Department is in the process of reviewing social media use guidance for schools in the wake of this scandal. Digital Rights Ireland has now written to the Department of Education and Youth querying why it continues to post pictures of children on X and says that posting images of individuals to the platform constitutes a "high risk" to those individuals and especially to children. I have stopped using X myself and I would prefer all State bodies and Government Departments to stop using it. Could the Tánaiste at least give a guarantee that Government Departments and Ministers will stop posting pictures of children and young people to that platform?

It is a very fair point that the Deputy makes and I will certainly speak with the Minister in relation to it. We are all trying to grapple with this in real time. I very much respect, genuinely, Members of this House, public bodies and others that have decided to leave the platform. I can understand why they have done that. Equally and currently in this space, I have decided for the moment to stay on it because it is a pitch I did not want to leave to the malign influences. It is important that we continue to put forward our points but it is a balance call. It is a tough one. The Deputy's specific point in relation to child safety and the posting of children's images on X is a serious one that deserves a response. While there have been changes to the use of that app in Ireland, the broader point she makes is valid. I will ask the Minister, Deputy Naughton, to revert to the Deputy on it.

I want to raise again the fact that the people of south Tipperary have had no ophthalmology service for almost 18 months now. There is a huge waiting list, heading for over 3,000, of children and adults waiting for urgent eye treatment. Hundreds of children have never been seen. Hundreds of people with glaucoma have either never been seen or are awaiting follow-up treatment and some may be facing blindness. The HSE failed to fill the vacant consultant post which arose from a retirement on age grounds even though it was aware for a number of years that the retirement was due. This issue has been raised here on numerous occasions, without success. I ask the Tánaiste to personally intervene in this situation to ensure that the service is returned to south Tipperary urgently.

I thank Deputy Healy for raising the matter of ophthalmology in south Tipperary. I acknowledge it is an issue he has raised in this House previously. I will speak directly to the Minister for Health and ask that she examines the matter with the HSE and reverts to the Deputy.

Yesterday the European Parliament voted to pause the Mercosur deal. No sooner had that vote taken place than the European Commission and many senior members and politicians, including the German Chancellor, effectively stated that they wanted to proceed provisionally with the implementation of Mercosur. The position of Ursula von der Leyen and the Commission is very clear in relation to this but our position has been ambivalent at best. During the last round at the European Council, you really came in at the eleventh hour in terms of your opposition. The provisional implementation will go before the European Council and will need a qualified majority vote. Will the Government engage across Europe with the wavering nations in particular and ensure that the voices of the European Parliament and the people are heard and that this Mercosur deal will go through the courts and a court decision will be reached before the provisional implementation of this deal?

I have consistently said on the public record that the people's democratically elected representatives across the European Union should never be taken for granted in relation to Mercosur. I have consistently said that. There has been a misrepresentation by some, although not by Deputy Lawless, that it was all about the European Council. Yes, the Council had a vote and Ireland voted "No" but there is a co-decisionmaking power and the European Parliament also has a vote. What I would have much preferred to happen yesterday, to give certainty to Irish farmers, was that the European Parliament had direct vote in relation to its consent to the trade agreement. I believe if that had happened, a very significant majority of Government MEPs would have opposed the deal. Instead, we have a situation where it now goes off for a court review that could take two years. That leaves this grey area now where the European Commission may try to provisionally implement the agreement. Ireland's position and that of the Government of Ireland is clear in opposing the Mercosur agreement in its current form. There was no question of an eleventh hour. We worked, as did France and President Macron, up to the last minute to see what we could get in terms of a good deal for farmers. We never gave up. We kept working but when we did not get a deal that was good enough, we voted against it. We kept our word and I am proud of how we handled that. We will continue, at Government level, to be consistent in relation to it.

In east Galway we have a problem in that more and more GP practices are declaring that they can no longer take on more patients. They are at capacity and that is a significant issue. We also have another issue whereby we are not retaining our young doctors coming out university. We invest so much in our young people and their education, from primary school, through secondary school, buses, hot school meals, SUSI and so on, only for them to leave the country. What is the Government's plan to retain young doctors and young Irish people here so that they can serve rural communities like Galway east and ensure that we have GP capacity when we need it?

I thank Deputy Dolan for raising this issue. I would point out that we have made a number of investments to try to assist GPs in making their practices more sustainable in recent times, including a relatively new revision to the GP contract and assistance in terms of staffing for GP practices. One of the models that I am personally quite favourably disposed to, and which is allowed for in the programme for Government, is the idea of salaried GPs. When students come out of medical school and out of GP training they want to be a doctor. They want to serve their community but may not necessarily want to be the manager of all that goes with that. They want to actually be seeing patients. There are also some parts of the country where it can be more difficult to be financially viable. I would personally like to see an acceleration of the roll out of salaried GPs as one way to make progress. There are other ways and the Deputy may be implying that, in the context of our education system, we could provide more assistance and in return, people could agree to provide a level of service. That is something that should be considered too. I will ask the Minister for Health and perhaps also the Minister for further and higher education, Deputy Lawless, to engage with the Deputy on this.

The programme for Government committed to evaluating options to amend the ECCE eligibility criteria and it is clear why. It relies on a blunt cut-off date for children starting the ECCE scheme whereby they must be two years and eight months by 1 September. The inequity this causes is obvious from replies I have received to parliamentary questions. A total of 17% of children do not take up the second year of the free ECCE scheme. When that 17% is broken down by birth month, 3,257 were born in January, while just 171 were born in December.

Because of a matter of days or weeks, thousands of children are missing out on a full year of ECCE entitlement, the development benefits for the child and the financial benefits for the family. It is developmentally transformative, which is why Fine Gael increased it to two years. This is especially unjust when those children will start school at the same time as their December-born peers, but at a disadvantage.

In my mind, there is no need to delay on this. A review on ECCE was completed in October. We need a more flexible, inclusive system.

I thank Deputy Currie for raising this issue. I acknowledge her work as a vocal advocate for parents and providers and for getting this whole area of childcare right. I think that with all that went on in the world, perhaps it did not get as much attention this week as it merited. We took a very significant step forward this week with the capital investment for public facilities in relation to childcare and I thank the Minister, Deputy Foley, for that too.

The issue the Deputy has raised is an important issue because ECCE has been transformational. We all see it. We see it in our own children and we see it in our schools. Children are going into schools so much better prepared, educationally but also from a child development point of view. We do have the commitment in the programme for Government to amend eligibility criteria for ECCE. I take the point the Deputy makes in relation to the loss of time that a child might experience. I will ask the Minister, Deputy Foley, to provide a timeline for when we intend to progress that commitment.

The position of Larry Murrin as chairman of Bord Bia is totally untenable. He has direct involvement in the importation of substandard Brazilian beef into Ireland. No Irish food processor should be importing this product into Ireland, but the fact that the chair of Bord Bia, an organisation that is tasked with promoting the quality of Irish food around the world, is absolutely outrageous. It is a conflict of interest and it undermines Irish farming. It is an absolute insult to Irish farmers, who have to meet the highest standards in food production. The Government appointed him to this position. It now needs to hold him accountable. It also needs to stop dodging the question: does it have confidence in him and will it remove him from this position?

I think the Sinn Féin proposal might be to disband Bord Bia and just let you lads run the organisation. We have a board at Bord Bia and the way State boards work is very clear. They meet, they look at different issues in relation to corporate governance and then they can provide a report to the Minister. That is happening in real time. It is happening as we meet today.

I believe in due process. I believe in these issues being considered. Conflicts of interest, real or perceived, are important governance issues, absolutely. I think the position adopted by the president of the IFA - have a meeting, ask the questions and then decide - is a far more reasonable and responsible position.

This week, I would like to use my time to speak about carer's allowance and, in particular, the commitment in the programme for Government to abolish the means test. In Carlow and Kilkenny, I know many families where one parent gives up work to care full time for a child and the other parent then needs to work extra hours to pay the mortgage and bills. This additional necessary income then prevents the family carer from receiving carer's allowance because the family's means are often deemed too high.

I acknowledge and truly welcome the increase in the income disregard that is coming into effect on 1 July, where the families like the ones I have just described will now be able to earn €2,000 per week and still receive carer's allowance, but can the Tánaiste please offer me a timeline for when the means test will be completely abolished?

I thank Deputy Callaghan for raising this issue and bringing people into this debate because this is a real issue and we want to support carers right across this country. Carers are doing incredible work. They are also saving this State an absolute fortune and I acknowledge that as well.

I am pleased to say that the programme for Government commitment we have given to abolish the means test over the lifetime of the Government is well under way. The last budget saw the largest ever increase in the carer's allowance income disregard, so we have taken a very strong and important start in relation to that. We significantly increased the income disregard for carer's allowance and we intend to do that in each budget. The pace at which we do it will be a matter for each individual budget, but that is how we will get to our programme for Government commitment. From July last year, the amount of weekly earnings disregard was increased to €625 for a single person and €1,250 for a couple. The budget then built on that with further improvements to the means test, which will be introduced from this July. They will see the income disregard increase by 60% for a single person, from €625 to €1,000, and, as Deputy rightly said, from €1,250 to €2,000 for carers who are part of a couple. We intend to build on that and continue to support our carers and fulfil our programme for Government commitment to abolish the means test over the lifetime of the Government.

This week, I and many of my Government colleagues welcomed the over €12 million allocated in local sports partnership grants. What was not welcomed was the method of the county breakdown in which it was allocated. It is not just about this round of grants; it is across many grants that are distributed through local authorities and local community development committees. There is a narrative in here that Dublin gets everything, but that is not borne out in the facts of those community-type grants.

If we look at Dublin City or Dún Laoghaire or Fingal, they all received broadly similar figures of around €450,000, as Offaly did. Offaly has a population of 90,000, while many of those areas have populations of 300,000 or 400,000 and, in the case of Dublin city, 600,000. South Dublin County Council received €350,000 despite having a population six times the size of counties like Longford and Carlow. I am afraid to mention too many places because my colleagues will be claiming that they delivered.

Given the cross-departmental responsibility the Department of the Taoiseach has, will it examine this issue? We understand it cannot be strictly per capita, but there is an unfairness here. Our local urban villages cannot access the town and village renewal scheme, for example. This is an issue that we need to look at. Will the Tánaiste work with his colleagues in both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to see if we can get a better deal for Dublin?

Is there a split in the ranks of the Government?

You mentioned a lot of counties there. Deputy Clendennen nearly jumped over the seat when you said Offaly.

I did not mention Wicklow, Tánaiste.

You did not mention Wicklow, which I appreciate. The point is a serious one because we quite rightly have a Department of rural and community affairs and it is doing very good work. We have a number of schemes as well. There are obviously issues in areas of particularly fast-growing populations and areas of increased population density. Dublin as a city and a county, and I would go as far to say the greater Dublin area, does have particular pressures in terms of population growth as well. There is never an exact science in relation to this. Population is one index, as are need and deprivation; there are a variety of indexes. It is a fair point that the Deputy makes. I will discuss it with both the Minister for sport and the Minister of State for sport. Perhaps it is a piece that we could get the Irish Government Economic Evaluation Service to look at just to make sure we are meeting the needs of all of our country's communities, urban and rural, but I am pleased this Government is increasing funding right across this country.

Absolutely. It is very welcome.

Curragh Community College in my constituency of Kildare South is in a state of utter disrepair. The school community was promised a new school building nearly a decade ago and they are still waiting. There are several problems with mould and leaks. The ceilings are falling in and the conditions are absolutely hazardous. A number of classrooms have already closed; therefore, students are on a rotation between attending on site and home learning. For students sitting State exams, it is completely unfair. Students cannot be expected to learn, nor should teachers and staff be expected to work in such conditions. I commend the students who contacted me directly and their parents. The students are staging a walk-out next Tuesday in protest. It should not have had to come to this. I was due to meet the students last week and they had another unexpected school closure due to issues with their water. It is happening very frequently. The level of disruption is unacceptable. I have written to the Tánaiste's party colleagues the previous Minister, Deputy McEntee, and the current Minister, Deputy Naughton. I have submitted parliamentary questions. I do not know what else we can do. We need an immediate intervention. Will the Tánaiste please intervene to deliver this new school building as a matter of urgency?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and for the way she illustrated the serious impact this is having on the community college. I too commend the advocacy of the students. I take her point that they should not have to be doing this, but the pride they take in their school community and their own education is commendable. I certainly urge them to feel free to write to me or the Minister for education. I would be happy to revert to them on this as well. I will ask the Minister, Deputy Naughton, to come back to the Deputy directly on this. I know that the education capital plan is due to be published imminently, in the next couple of weeks. I will ask that the Minister looks at it in that context and comes back to the Deputy directly.

I welcome to the Gallery healthcare assistants from Northside Home Care. They are workers who do incredibly important work. They work antisocial hours, on evenings and weekends. Many of them worked on Christmas Day and despite their Trojan work for our elderly, they receive only the minimum wage or just above it. Their pay levels are effectively below what they were paid in 2009. They received pay cuts then and have never received pay restoration.

They have been excluded from a pay increase for the social, community and voluntary sector. They are being paid far less than healthcare assistants who are employed directly by the HSE, yet they do the same work. This has forced this group of workers to go on strike. These workers look after our loved ones in our communities, helping people to stay in their homes and out of hospital. This is some of the most important work anyone could do and it is being massively undervalued. The way the workers are being treated is a disgrace. Will the Minister for Health meet the group of workers, and will the Government act to ensure they are paid a fair wage, which they deserve?

I thank the Deputy O’Callaghan for raising the issue. I welcome the people in the Gallery and thank them for being here today. I am trying to familiarise myself with this issue in real time. My understanding is that all homecare services funded by the HSE have now received the pay uplift they were meant to receive through the WRC agreement but that there are a number of services that do not receive direct funding through the HSE. However, I also understand that Northside Home Care Services does receive some section 39 funding in relation to the meals-on-wheels service it provides. I believe the HSE reached out to Northside Home Care Services last week to remind it, the employer, of the process for claiming an uplift in pay funding in respect of the section 39 funding it receives. I will personally speak to the chief executive of the HSE and revert to the Deputy directly.

I raised the issue of congestion in my constituency yesterday. I also attended a meeting of the tourism committee at which we discussed issues such as the new EU resolution that electric vehicles, EVs, will have to be introduced for car rental by 2030. There has been a little blowback on that. Dublin Airport does not have the capacity and it accounts for 80% of all car hires. There is some flexibility, though, in terms of Dublin Airport. Given that 38% of people who come into Dublin Airport and hire a car there go to the west, there is a lot of scope for Ireland West Airport in terms of providing grants to charge EVs there and having overnight charging facilities in the area. This is also valid from a congestion perspective. All the cars going from Dublin Airport directly to the west are clogging up the M50 and also the N4 in my constituency. There is synergy possible in this regard. Ireland West Airport could have more planes landing there for tourists who love to drive automatic electric cars.

I thank Deputy Gogarty. I always find these questions are so broad-ranging. This is an area I need to familiarise myself with more but I believe there is validity to what the Deputy says in that we want to ensure we fully utilise all of the airport infrastructure we have in the country. I am quite sure people in the west would welcome an increased flow there, particularly because so many who go to Dublin end up travelling west.

Sitting beside the Minister of State responsible for planning, I am aware we are looking into planning exemptions for EV charging points and the like, which might help with a tangential but nonetheless important issue. I will ask the Minister for Transport, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, to consider the Deputy’s suggestion and revert to him directly.

I want to raise the issue of childcare. Yesterday, we heard that 40,000 children are on waiting lists and that over 1,000 childcare facilities have closed over the past six years. I am raising, in particular, the issue of the numerous parents in my own constituency who have contacted me because they are terrified that their crèche, UniKids Childcare, in the National Technology Park, Castletroy, will likely have to close due to core funding issues. The launch of the Government plan to provide State-led early learning, while welcome, will do nothing to ease their worries unless core funding caps are considered. What is the Government doing to help parents with kids in crèches like UniKids, which are at risk of closure due to underfunding? Will the Tánaiste look into the core funding cap in relation to this?

I thank Deputy Sheehan very much for raising this important issue. A record number of services are now operating within core funding, with a 5% increase on last year. Four thousand five hundred and fifty-nine services are now signed up for core funding. However, I take the point that a parent of a child in Castletroy concerned about his or her own service will want to know what is going to happen locally in addition to the national numbers.

We have very much kicked off some of our key commitments on childcare. We will be reducing childcare costs for 47,000 low-income families by providing them with additional subsidies under the national childcare scheme this year. We saw the capital investment plan announced yesterday as well. The issue of core funding will, of course, be examined as part of the childcare plan, as it must be. However, I will ask the relevant Minister, Deputy Foley, to engage directly with the Deputy, particularly if there is local concern about Castletroy.

I want to raise again on the floor of the Dáil the issue of the much-loved 123 bus service, now the 73, that runs from the city centre to Marino. It was restructured by the NTA under BusConnects without consultation. It was moved away from O’Connell Street without consultation and given to Go-Ahead to operate without consultation. From the growing number of complaints I have heard from local residents, it is not working. At the best of times, it is difficult for punters to raise an issue with the NTA but the NTA needs to read our collective lips. This service is not working.

At a time when we talk about increased congestion and the importance of bus services to deal with congestion and move people out of cars, we have a service that is clearly struggling and under pressure. I ask that the Tánaiste help public representatives and the community to get the NTA officials around the table for dialogue so we can try to resolve some of these issues.

I will, indeed. I thank Deputy Ó Muirí very much for raising the issue. Since he raised it with me on a number of occasions, I have a detailed note here. I am a great believer in what he said, namely that if enough people are raising an issue with him and other public representatives in Dublin Bay North, then there is an issue, and that issue needs to be considered with humility and respect, and in a constructive manner, by State agencies. If changes have been made, there is no point in people who do not get a particular bus writing notes to everyone to say that bus is going grand. Therefore, I will certainly speak directly to the Minister for Transport and ask for real and meaningful engagement with public representatives on this. The NTA tells me there was public consultation in advance of the changes. It also tells me it will review feedback it is receiving on local connectivity. I detect the scepticism and frustration the Deputy is articulating on behalf of his constituents and therefore I will ask the Minister, Deputy O’Brien, to discuss this matter with him directly and determine whether we can have meaningful engagement with the NTA.

I want to draw the Tánaiste’s attention to the urgent and growing need for increased funding for the community involvement scheme and the local improvement scheme, particularly in Sligo-Leitrim and south Donegal. I am sure he is very much aware of this need. The programmes are vital for rural connectivity and safety, yet they remain significantly under-resourced. In 2025, Sligo County Council received €473,000 under the schemes. This allocation allowed for 13 roads to be completed. Meanwhile, 103 additional schemes remain on the waiting list, affecting communities that have been waiting year after year for essential upgrades. The estimated cost of addressing this backlog now exceeds €5 million. This figure continues to rise and roads continue to deteriorate.

To make meaningful progress to ensure rural communities will not be left behind, at least €2 million will be required annually over the coming years. Without investment at this level, the backlog will persist indefinitely and the gap between need and delivery will only widen. I strongly appeal to the Department to increase the funding for the local improvement and community involvement schemes in Sligo-Leitrim and south Donegal so essential local infrastructure can be upgraded for the communities that both need it and that have waited for far too long. These people pay the same taxes as everyone else in the country and deserve the same treatment as everyone else.

I am very sympathetic to and supportive of the point Deputy Scanlon made. The relevant Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, and I were just discussing the fact that the money spent on the schemes represents some of the best value achieved by the State in its expenditure. There is no waste or messing around, and the return on investment is good, real, meaningful, tangible and pretty immediate.

I am proud of the work we have done together over the past while. It has seen progress. In this regard, the Deputy has talked about the projects delivered in his own constituency. However, he made the point that for each success, many projects need to be delivered. I will engage with the relevant Departments to determine what more we can do to support the schemes, which really help communities, particularly rural ones.

I want to ask about the pension auto-enrolment scheme, particularly for community organisations. Clondalkin Drug and Alcohol Task Force estimates auto-enrolment will cost its organisation about €6,000 in 2026. If things stay as they are, that will rise to €12,000 after three years, €18,000 after six and €24,000 after nine. It is not sustainable if the funding remains the same. Other projects are in the same boat. Another organisation that contacted me said it will cost it €10,000 this year. These organisations are not businesses.

They are not able to get revenue in, increase costs or anything like that. They rely on Government funding to provide the services. They are already engaging in fundraising activities to cover funding deficits that are already there. I am not being critical of auto-enrolment. It is a really good idea and these organisations are really happy that their workers are getting pensions but unless they receive supports, they may have to cut vital services, which goes against their service level agreements. Has the Government got a solution to this issue?

It is a fair point and I, like the Deputy, do not want to pit workers against management because what we are all trying to do here is make sure that people who have not had pension provision before can in the future and that we end the really difficult gap between people who have pensions and do not have them. That is the ultimate aim. As schemes are rolled out, issues will have to be resolved and the Government obviously does not want to see a deviation or reduction in the level of service provision to address pay or pensions issues. I will ask the Minister, Deputy Dara Calleary, who has responsibility for auto-enrolment, to take this example the Deputy has given in relation to Clondalkin and to come back to him directly on the issue.

Will the Tánaiste join me in welcoming performers and participants from Jenin refugee camp and the Freedom Theatre who are coming here? They will be performing Return to Palestine starting next Wednesday in the Project Arts Centre as part of the Seachtain Saoirse don Phalaistín, the week of freedom for Palestine, organised by Cairde Amharclann na Saoirse in Éirinn, friends of the Freedom Theatre in Palestine. To understand the context, this theatre in Jenin was destroyed by the Israelis in one of successive attacks in 2023 before 7 October of that year. Since then, the entire Jenin refugee camp has effectively been ethnically cleansed. It has been subject to absolutely brutal attacks in the occupied West Bank, putting to lie the suggestion by Israel that it was all to do with 7 October. These artists are coming here, brought by Irish artists, as part of the cultural resistance of the Palestinian people against their dehumanisation, occupation and the destruction of that theatre. It was destroyed mid-performance. Lots of people were killed in these attacks by the Israeli occupation forces in Jenin. They deserve to be welcomed and I would encourage people to go to the Project Arts Centre and see the performance they are putting on as well as some of the other events that are part of the week.

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for highlighting this issue. I join him in welcoming the performers and participants from the theatre group. I thank him for reminding us of the horrific horrors that have been experienced there. Culture and art can often be a very important part of shining a spotlight on this and I join with the Deputy in welcoming them.

I move:

That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Online Safety and Media Regulation Act 2022 to regulate the use of recommender algorithms by video-sharing platform services.

I am delighted to introduce what, I think, is a very important Bill, the Online Safety (Recommender Algorithms) Bill 2026. The Bill is very simple; it bans big tech companies from targeting children with toxic algorithms and turns them off by default for those over 18. This implements the unanimous all-party recommendation of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Artificial Intelligence, of which I am a member, in its first report published before Christmas. It also implements the original recommendation of Coimisiún na Meán in its draft online safety code to turn off social media algorithms by default before lobbying by big tech got that removed.

Government Ministers have also previously said they support this. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, told the Dáil last year that she fully agreed that algorithms need to be switched off. Public opinion definitely strongly supports this. An Ireland Thinks opinion poll last September found that 68% of people want these toxic algorithms turned off. The urgency around forcing big tech to turn off its toxic algorithms has become even clearer in recent weeks. Elon Musk, the almost trillionaire owner of X and Grok, has turned Twitter into a machine for the mass production of child sexual abuse imagery and image-based sexual abuse of women. It is not just X. TikTok, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram - all of them - are pushing toxic content at children and adults every single second of the day. Their sole purpose in doing so is to maximise their profit. They know that extreme content keeps people watching longer. The longer the eyes are on the screens, the more ads they can see and the more money that Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg can make.

For girls, they recommend content promoting self-harm, suicide and eating disorders. Research in 2022 estimated that Meta makes over a quarter of a billion euro a year from pro-eating disorder accounts and related advertising on Instagram, most of which is targeted at young girls. For boys, it pushes anti-feminist manosphere content from misogynistic abusers like Andrew Tate. Numerous studies have shown how quickly this pushing happens. A study by Dublin City University, DCU, in 2024 showed how blank social media accounts identified as belonging to 16- and 18-year-old males were fed masculinist, anti-feminist and other extremist content between two and 23 minutes of being set up. Within two to three hours of viewing, three quarters of the content recommended by the algorithm was toxic.

The media are now reporting how so-called artificial intelligence, AI, girlfriend apps and websites are being pushed to teenage boys across all major social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and X. "AI girlfriend" is a misleading term for apps with taglines like "Build your own AI slut", which incite boys to create sexual abuse imagery by suggesting they can upload real photos of people they know. Within minutes, the app can create extreme, degrading, deepfake pornography of girls in their class in school. Is the Government going to continue to stand over big tech companies profiting from a depraved race to the bottom?

The Taoiseach has been one of big tech's biggest boosters, regurgitating their public relations, PR, line on repeat that AI is the fourth industrial revolution on par with mechanisation and the printing press. The Government is tearing up planning laws, breaking its own legally binding climate laws and sacrificing electricity desperately needed for housing and public transport, all so that big tech can build even more data centres to store all the data where the algorithms operate and train their AI. Are they going to continue to sell our souls to big tech?

The Tánaiste recently said that some things are more important than money. Now it is time for the Government to show it actually believes that, to take action, to agree with us and to turn off the toxic algorithms that direct our children to this horrific material. We need to do this urgently, not just to protect children but to protect the mental health of adults being bombarded with horrible, toxic content on a daily basis.

The big tech companies know that hardly anyone would choose to see this stuff given the choice. That is why they lobbied Coimisiún na Meán so hard to get rid of the recommendation to turn off these recommender algorithms by default. We have to turn off this toxic torrent at the source - the big tech companies and the billionaire psychopaths who own them - rather than continuing to put all the responsibility on individual users and on parents, who are completely overwhelmed.

Ms Niamh McDonald from the Hope and Courage Collective, an expert in this area who spoke at our press conference this morning, argued correctly that we must treat big tech just like big tobacco. It is the big tobacco of our day and we must take action now to prevent even more widespread harm. I hope all parties across the Dáil will support the Bill.

I thank Deputy Murphy. Is the Bill opposed?

It is not opposed.

Since this is a Private Members' Bill, Second Stage must, under Standing Orders, be taken in Private Members' time.

I move: "That the Bill be taken in Private Members' time."

Tairgim: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Tá áthas orm an Bille a chur i láthair sa Teach. I am pleased to introduce Criminal Law and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026. The Bill introduces important reforms to our criminal law and civil law across a broad range of areas and delivers on several programme for Government commitments. While miscellaneous provisions Bills often lack the unifying theme of other Bills, three primary themes emerge from the provisions of this Bill: procedural reforms to support a more responsive and efficient justice system; addressing issues relating to penal policy and prisons; and reforming aspects of the law in relation to sexual offences and sexually exploitative behaviours. The Bill responds to a range of challenges for the criminal justice system in particular, including severe prison overcrowding and an increase in violent incidents; the exploitative practice of seeking sexual activity in lieu of rent; and the need to restrict the disclosure of counselling records in sexual offence trials.

I will begin with the various procedural reforms for the criminal justice system that this Bill introduces. The Bill enables bail bonds and suspended sentence bonds to be taken by gardaí and prison officers, respectively, where a person participates in the hearing from custody. This will better facilitate videolink participation in court hearings by persons in custody and free up the time of front-line gardai and prison officers by reducing the need to convey persons in custody to and from the court.

The Bill also enables garda staff to certify custody of exhibits used as evidence in criminal proceedings. This will aid in freeing up gardaí for core policing duties, in line with long-standing policies on the civilianisation of non-core Garda functions.

Additionally, the Bill lowers the minimum rank of Garda that may apply to court for antisocial behaviour orders in respects of children and adults.

While these provisions may in themselves appear modest, cumulatively they have the potential to make an important difference by saving on the time of gardaí and prison officers in particular. I should add that I plan to introduce, by way of amendment to the Bill, further procedural reforms on Committee Stage, including the expanded use of remote hearings in criminal proceedings and the electronic transmission of documents in such proceedings. These measures will allow -----

Sorry, a Cheann Comhairle. Is the speech available?

We have just asked the usher for the speech.

These measures will allow the courts to bring a more flexible and efficient approach to such proceedings and save further time for gardaí, prison officers and other court users.

The Bill also provides for reforms in respect of prisons and penal policy. It supports the programme for Government commitment to extend the use of community sanctions by obliging the courts to consider a community service order in lieu of a prison sentence of up to 24 months duration - the current such threshold being 12 months - and doubling from 240 to 480 hours the number of hours of community service that may be prescribed in such an order. The court will also be required to give reasons where it considers that a community service order should not be made in such a case.

There are many offences with penalties of up to 24 months imprisonment where the offender poses no risk to the community and where the public interest may be better served by a person undertaking community service rather than being put in prison. This is particularly so at a time of serious capacity pressures on our prisons. Every case that results in a community service order will help to free up prison spaces for offenders who genuinely warrant imprisonment.

While greater use of community sanctions has a role to play in resolving prison overcrowding, I of course accept that it cannot be the only solution. The very large and sustained increases in the Irish population warrant a proportionate increase in prison capacity and the Government is taking the necessary action. As part of the national development plan, €495 million will be invested in building projects to deliver on a plan to build over 1,500 prison spaces by 2031. This will be the largest ever building programme on the prison estate.

In the meantime, however, overcrowding is causing a range of issues for our prisons, including an increase in violent incidents. While such violence has always been a risk factor in prisons, the situation now demands a response and it is in this context that the Bill includes provisions to remove the legal barrier to the possession and use of incapacitant sprays by prison officers.

The Bill provides that the use of such sprays will be permitted only in accordance with such provision as may be made by me as Minister under the prison rules. Their use will be further underpinned by mandatory policies and procedures along with bespoke training for prison officers, to further ensure that these devices are used appropriately and in line with all applicable health and safety and human rights considerations.

The Bill also contains important measures in relation to victims and potential victims of sexual violence and exploitation. I will focus first on the issue of counselling notes. I want to begin by acknowledging the distress that the disclosure of such personal and sensitive information can cause. As Deputies will be aware, section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 was drafted with the intention of ensuring an appropriate balance between an accused’s right to a fair trial and a complainant’s right to privacy. It permits an accused person to make an application to the court for the disclosure of counselling records, but also allows the complainant to object to such disclosure, triggering a disclosure hearing. It also allows the complainant to waive their right to such a hearing.

Over time, it has become clear that section 19A has not operated as intended. Complainants feel pressured to agree to the waiver, with the result that records are routinely released without judicial oversight. The Bill therefore deletes the waiver provision.

Sorry, Minister, just one second. Deputy, what is the problem?

Any chance of a speech?

The Deputy is waiting for the speech.

Where are they?

Sometimes I just speak off the cuff. I am giving a speech. Can the Deputy not just listen to me?

The Minister is meant to produce the speech. And do not speak like that. That is unbecoming.

The Deputy is aware that the speech is on the way.

But the speech should be provided. This is a most comprehensive Bill.

I will address that later.

And the Minister speaking like that to Members of the Opposition is not acceptable.

The Minister should continue.

I am just giving a -----

I will address that later at the Business Committee and with the Dáil reform committee.

Okay.

Sorry, on a point of order -----

There is no point of order.

----- this speech was sent out by Deputy Michael Lowry yesterday -----

There is no point of order on the speech.

----- to a constituent. We should have it here.

Deputy, resume your seat please.

It was.

Minister, continue.

It was sent out yesterday by Deputy Michael Lowry to people.

You will have the speech when it arrives and I will address it after that for sure.

If Deputy Lowry had it yesterday, the rest of us who are in here for the debate should have it.

It is the Minister's responsibility to produce the speech.

I am giving the speech.

No, it is the Minister's responsibility to share it.

That is enough, Members. We will continue with the speech.

I have been there, done that.

And it is not off the cuff.

The Minister to continue, please.

The Bill, therefore, deletes the waiver provision.

Do we have a copy of the speech, by the way?

It is on the way. We have requested it, as Members are aware.

If Deputies want, I will wait until it comes. If the Ceann Comhairle will stop my clock, I will wait until it arrives.

That is absolutely fine, Minister. Thank you. We will suspend until such a time as the speech arrives.

Copies of the speech are on the way. Deputies can rest assured that I will deal with this at the Business Committee next Thursday. I have already informed the Chief Whip's office that all speeches will be disseminated to Members prior to the speech or as the speech begins.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.

I was focusing first on the issue of counselling notes. I again acknowledge the distress that the disclosure of such personal and sensitive information can cause. As Deputies will be aware, section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, which was amended in 2017, was drafted with the intention of ensuring an appropriate balance between an accused’s right to a fair trial and a complainant’s right to privacy. It permits an accused person to make an application to the court for the disclosure of counselling records, but also allows the complainant to object to such disclosure, triggering a disclosure hearing. It also allows the complainant to waive their right to such a hearing.

Over time, it has become clear that section 19A has not operated as intended. Complainants feel pressured to agree to the waiver, with the result that records are routinely released without judicial oversight. The Bill therefore deletes the waiver provision. This means there will be a hearing in all cases, where the complainant is legally represented, and where the defence must make a compelling case that disclosure is required. Therefore, such records will only be released where the judge deems them relevant to the defence.

I know that there have been calls for an outright ban on the use of counselling records in criminal trials, including by the Deputy Carthy's Oireachtas joint committee in its pre-legislative scrutiny report. I fully appreciate that such calls are well-intentioned and I fully sympathise with victims and survivors who have deeply felt views in this matter. However, I must not mislead people and I must reiterate that the unambiguous advice of the Attorney General's office is that a blanket ban on the disclosure of counselling records is not compatible with the Constitution. I cannot seek to introduce legislation that is described by the Attorney General as unconstitutional. I am also aware that other stakeholders in the domestic violence sector have also secured their own legal advice. That legal advice has confirmed to them that a blanket ban would be unconstitutional.

I want to assure the House that today’s legislation is not the end of the matter. I am committed to restricting intrusions into victims’ privacy rights to the maximum extent permissible under the Constitution. Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has underlined the high level of constitutional protection given to personal records such as counselling notes. In line with this, on Committee Stage, I intend to introduce a presumption of non-disclosure in this regard. The default position will be that counselling notes are not to be disclosed.

This would only alter in the interests of justice, for example if an accused's fair trial rights are at risk. This will ensure that disclosure only takes place in the very small number of cases where it is warranted. Furthermore, I will expand the protections of section 19A to encompass other records containing sensitive personal data, such as medical records, child protection records and other such documents. These reforms will mean that proposed disclosure of any sensitive personal material will only occur where this is absolutely necessary, while any such disclosure will be subject to impartial and objective judicial scrutiny. I expect to be in a position in the near future to bring concrete proposals before this House in this regard.

Elsewhere, the Bill introduces measures to protect those at risk from the sexually predatory behaviour of accommodation being offered in return for sexual activity, commonly referred to as “sex for rent”. I reiterate that any attempt by accommodation providers to exploit their position and prey on vulnerable individuals through such arrangements is completely unacceptable. Such actions are an abuse of power, which will not be tolerated under any circumstances. The Bill will make it an offence to offer a tenancy or a licence for accommodation in exchange for sexual activity in lieu of payment. It will also be an offence to advertise such arrangements.

The Bill contains a range of other notable provisions, including to enable the use of more advanced DNA analysis techniques in missing persons cases. It is hoped that this will assist in resolving some outstanding missing persons cases and bring closure to families whose loved ones are missing.

On the civil law side, the Bill’s provisions include a permanent regulatory basis under which licensed premises may provide outdoor seating on public land. This will provide greater certainty for the businesses concerned and will support economic and social activity in our towns and cities.

I will deal briefly with the Bill on a section-by-section basis. The Bill is divided into 33 sections across 12 Parts.

Part 1 contains standard provisions setting out the Title, commencement order and a number of definitions of terms within the Bill.

Part 2 amends the Firearms Act 1925 and the Prisons Act 2007 to provide a basis for the possession, carriage and use of incapacitant sprays by prison officers in the course of their duties insofar as may be permitted under the prison rules.

Part 3 amends the Courts of Justice Act 1936 and the Courts Service Act 1998 to empower the Chief Justice to delegate certain non-judicial functions to other members of the Judiciary. This will allow the Chief Justice to focus on more pressing judicial matters.

Part 4 amends the Extradition Act 1965 to empower Garda members to provisionally arrest, without a warrant, persons named in Schengen information system alerts from Switzerland and Liechtenstein, countries that do not participate in the European arrest warrant system.

Part 5 contains section 12, which amends the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983 to oblige the courts to consider a community service order in lieu of a prison sentence of up to 24 months’ duration and to give reasons where they consider that a community service order should not be imposed in such cases. It also increases from 240 to 480 the maximum community service hours that a judge may order, and introduces a tiered timeframe for completion of the work depending on the number of hours of community service ordered. Section 12 also makes various amendments to the Act to allow the director of the probation service to designate staff other than probation officers to perform various functions under the Act. This will increase supervisory capacity in the area of community service while also freeing up more experienced officers to focus on higher-risk and more complex cases.

Part 6 relates to criminal evidence. Section 13 amends section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 to delete subsection (17) of that section, which provides that complainants may waive their right to non-disclosure of counselling records in applicable proceedings. The effect of this amendment is that a disclosure hearing will be held in all such cases and hence that counselling records will be disclosed only where the judge considers it necessary in the interests of justice.

As I have said, while this is a necessary initial step in reforming the law in this area, I believe further amendments may be merited in order to ensure that there is an optimal balance between the rights of complainants and defendants in this area.

Section 14 amends the Criminal Justice Act 1999 to provide that Garda staff, in addition to gardaí, as is already the case, may prepare and sign certificates of evidence relating to custody of exhibits.

Part 7 amends various enactments to reassign from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to me, the Minister for justice, the responsibility for certifying Irish citizenship where it is relevant to certain offences. This will bring the enactments in question into line with the approach taken in more recent legislation.

Part 8 contains section 21, which amends the Criminal Justice Act 2006 to provide that where a person entering into a suspended sentence recognisance is in custody in a prison, the governor of the prison or a designated prison officer may take the recognisance in the prison.

The section also amends the Criminal Justice Act 2006 to lower from superintendent to inspector the minimum rank of garda that may apply to court for an antisocial behaviour order in respect of an adult.

Part 9 amends the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014 to allow Forensic Science Ireland to generate DNA profiles derived from the analysis of coding DNA for identification purposes in cases relating to missing persons, unknown persons, and unknown deceased persons.

Part 10 contains section 24, which amends the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 to create new offences of offering or advertising accommodation in exchange for sexual activity.

Part 11 provides a permanent regulatory basis under which licensed premises may provide outdoor seating on public land. As Members will be aware, the current legal basis, the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, requires renewal every six months.

Part 12 contains miscellaneous amendments. Section 30 amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 to provide that where a person entering into a bail recognisance is in custody in a Garda station, the member of An Garda Síochána in charge of the station may take the recognisance at the station.

Section 31 amends the Schedule to the Bail Act 1997 to amend an inaccurate legislative reference and to add to the Schedule the offences of coercive control and forced marriage, which are provided for in the Domestic Violence Act 2018. This will mean that where a bail application is made by a person charged with either of those serious offences, a court may refuse the application if it reasonably considers such refusal necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person.

Section 32 amends the Children Act 2001 to lower from superintendent to inspector the minimum rank of garda that may apply to court for an antisocial behaviour order in respect of a child.

Finally, section 33 amends the Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011 to facilitate the transfer of functions under the Act from me, the Minister for justice to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. This amendment is necessary to negate a legislative absurdity whereby, as a consequence of the necessary transfer of functions order, the Act would otherwise require the Minister for housing to consult with himself or herself when making regulations under the Act.

Before I conclude, I would like to inform the House of certain amendments I intend to bring on Committee Stage, which arise from the general scheme of the Bill, some of which I have mentioned already. These include the provisions for the use of electronic technology in criminal proceedings, to which I have already referred; provisions for certificate evidence of presumptive drug testing by gardaí in certain proceedings; and a new Garda power under the Public Order Act to require the removal of face coverings in certain prescribed circumstances. I am conscious that there are differing views in respect of some of the proposals, as reflected in the justice committee's pre-legislative scrutiny, PLS, report. I advise the House that my officials and I are considering whether any modifications to the proposals in question are merited to ensure they are fully robust and workable.

I take this opportunity to thank the committee and its Chair, Deputy Carthy, for its consideration of the Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny, and to assure Members that I considered all the recommendations carefully. I will return to that presently in my closing remarks.

Separately, my officials are finalising legislative proposals for a scheme to enable the disregard of historical convictions relating to consensual same-sex activity. This was a matter Deputy Nash raised with me yesterday. I responded that I intend to bring forward Committee Stage amendments to the Bill in order to give effect to that.

I will very shortly be seeking Government approval for these proposals with a view to bringing them as amendments to the Bill as it progresses through the Houses. This will fulfil another programme for Government commitment and, more importantly, address a historical injustice against those affected, one which everyone in this House wants to see corrected. I will conclude on that point. I look forward to hearing the contributions of Deputies today, to which I will reply at the end of the debate.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, on which, as the Minister says, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration completed pre-legislative scrutiny in the latter part of last year.

Úsáidfidh mé mo chuid ama den chuid is mó chun labhairt faoin ngá atá le deireadh a chur le húsáid nótaí comhairleoireachta i dtrialacha foréigin ghnéasaigh.

During the pre-legislative scrutiny process and again today I have repeatedly made the point that the approach of the Department and the Minister of including such a wide range of unrelated, diverse and, in themselves sometimes very important, matters within a single miscellaneous Bill is less than ideal. Miscellaneous Bills should be used for limited and technical changes rather than a large range of complex issues, which in reality - as we saw during the PLS process - means there is not adequate time to fully scrutinise individual unrelated measures. This is particularly the case with this Bill, which deals with issues as diverse as the use of counselling notes in sexual violence trials; the use of incapacitant sprays in prisons; remote hearings in courts, outdoor seating for pubs and restaurants, and banning sex for rent. Given the limited time we have here this evening, I will not be able to deal with all of those issues comprehensively but there are a number of things on which I want to focus.

When the justice committee considered this Bill during the pre-legislative scrutiny process, there was cross-party support in one instance and quite an amount of deliberation in respect of the calls for a complete and unconditional ban on the use of counselling records in sexual offence trials. Crucial to the committee reaching that decision was listening directly to what victims and survivors said to us. Survivors strongly asserted that this practice is deeply traumatising, causes severe psychological harm and that it heightens suicide risk. That is the evidence that was brought directly to our committee.

Notably, professional mental health bodies have also called for an end to this practice. I commend all of those who have told their stories. I will single out just a couple of people - Hazel Behan and Paula Doyle. I thank them and all the others who told us their intimate, personal stories, so that, as legislators, we could understand the reality of what happens in our courts, not just the theory of the disclosure of counselling notes that are sought when they could have a relevant evidential value crucial to a fair trial, but the reality that disclosure is now considered the norm by defence teams. The reality is that rape victims who have taken the stand are being asked about unrelated and irrelevant matters, which they had discussed in intimate and deeply personal conversations with their counsellor. They have to deal with the impact of knowing the perpetrator can read their personal thoughts and feelings about what happened to them - not only their personal thoughts and feelings but the interpretation of those thoughts and feelings by a third party, namely, a counsellor. There is an impact on victims of having to hand over years of notes, and continuing to have to do so, while cases drag on if they continue to attend counselling. We heard very starkly that people now make a decision on whether to attend counselling or to pursue legal recourse.

The submissions and evidence emphasised to committee members across all parties both how crucial counselling is to surviving and how the reality of allowing the disclosure of counselling notes actually impacts on victims. The committee listened and in our report we collectively called on the Minister to support a complete ban. The reality is that we all know it is wrong and unacceptable to add to the trauma of victims and survivors. While of course everyone accepts that we must protect the right to a fair trial in all cases, we have a duty to victims and survivors that must be put at the heart of how our system works. In all of the evidence our committee received and in all of the public discourse I have yet to come across a single case where divulging counselling notes was warranted in order to receive a fair trial.

We deal with making the law here but victims and survivors are living with the impact of the laws we make. The legal process, we are told, is traumatising victims and survivors. That is widely acknowledged and therefore we need to address this issue as the legislation progresses. Court delays, which are a particular problem in sexual violence cases, mean that the process can drag on for years. We know that far too few cases of rape and sexual assault actually result in a successful prosecution. Many crimes of this nature - probably most of them - are not even reported. If we have a hostile justice system, which is what victims and survivors see when they hear about the disclosure of notes, it does not encourage us having a justice system that works. The disclosure of counselling notes compounds that trauma in a way that is very hard for any lay person to understand. Certainly, I do not think it would be possible for anyone who has not been through that process to fully understand what that means for victims and survivors. When they tell us that counselling saved their lives but they would not do it again if they knew their personal thoughts, worries and trauma would be handed over to the perpetrators, we have to listen. More importantly, we have to act. For those victims and survivors who are campaigning for a ban on the disclosure of counselling notes, some of whom are here in the Gallery today, the real truth is that this will not help them personally. They have been through the process. They have suffered the trauma. They are doing this and are here pleading with us not on their own behalf but on behalf of others. They are asking us to act and they must be commended on that. Again, I appeal to the Minister to listen and to bring forward or accept amendments on Committee Stage to provide for a complete ban on the disclosure of counselling notes.

There are a number of other issues which I want to touch on briefly before concluding. The pre-legislative report from our committee had serious reservations in respect of the use of incapacitant spray in prisons and recommended that this proposal be dropped. Again, it appears we have not been listened to on this. I encourage anybody with an interest in this area to read or watch back the testimony of the Inspector of Prisons to the justice committee. He indicated that after more than 30 years of inspecting prisons across 46 member states of the Council of Europe, the current conditions for some people living in Irish prisons were among the worst he had seen. The inspector highlighted that at the start of this year there were 5,761 people in Irish prisons, which have a capacity of 4,718. That is an increase in 700 in the last 12 months and means we now have over 600 people sleeping on mattresses in Irish prisons. That means our prisons are not able to function as we want them to. This is on the Minister's watch and it is on the Government's watch. Rather than dealing with the serious overcrowding crisis which is making the conditions in prisons more dangerous for staff and prisoners alike, we are having this proposal instead. I have not been at all convinced that the introduction of a weapon into our prisons is the answer to the overcrowding crisis.

The Bill also deals with the issue of sex for rent. I welcome that because the Government and successive governments have been far too slow in dealing with this issue. Concerns have been raised for years and we know some landlords have been exploiting vulnerable tenants. It is two and a half years since the Sinn Féin spokesperson on housing, Deputy Ó Broin, introduced a Bill that would ban sex for rent. The issue should have been dealt with before now.

Likewise, I welcome the announcement that at some point during the process, and I hope it is early so that we have time to properly scrutinise it, a disregard will be allowed of historical convictions relating to same-sex activity. I welcome that. I commend my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, who has long campaigned for legislation on this. Again, I ask for it to be done as quickly as possible.

Finally, I want to address the fact that this Bill amends the Schedule to the Bail Act 1997. It adds the offences of coercive control and forced marriage, in both cases under the Domestic Violence Act 2018, to the Schedule to the Bail Act. Many people will be disappointed by the fact that this does not add section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act, which relates to breaches of domestic violence court orders, to the Schedule. While to do this would require the maximum penalty on conviction to be raised to five years, this could and should have been done as well because it is something that has been raised with me by those in the legal profession working in the field. It is also one of the recommendations in the report prepared by Lorcan Staines SC and published in November. More generally, I put on record that I hope the Minister will very speedily enact the other recommendations of that report. I will leave that for now.

I am not in favour of the use of miscellaneous Bills for complex issues such as those we are discussing today. The issues in this Bill are diverse and have little or no connection to each other. The Minister went through the list of what the Bill covers, from the use of counselling notes in sexual violence crimes to obligating courts to consider a community service order in lieu of prison sentences, and even to outdoor seating on public land. There is very little connection between these. During the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, some of these issues were not even discussed. These matters deserve their own stand-alone Bill in order to be interrogated properly, to give us the time to discuss them, to make sure we do due diligence on each Bill and to give each matter what it needs. The whole process is rushed, and rushed Bills make bad Bills. We learned from the Minister's speech that more amendments with other stuff are coming later on. We should have more chances to discuss such matters for a longer time. Due to the length of time I have to speak, I will only be able to speak on one aspect of this Bill.

I wish to talk about one of the aspects of the Bill that I know and of which I have some experience. The practice of the defence in sexual violence cases requesting counselling notes has become the norm, with devastating consequences for victims who are seeking justice. I am a qualified and former practising counsellor. During my time counselling clients, they would have disclosed to me some absolutely harrowing details, including being victims of child abuse or sexual and gender-based violence, and being victims and survivors of coercive control. As a practising counsellor, I was not aware that the legal team of a perpetrator of these horrific crimes could request my counselling notes to be used to defend its clients. Thank God, I was never asked to hand over such notes. I do not genuinely think I would have complied with such an order. Whatever the consequences would be, so be it. We also need to look at the practice of the DPP in the requesting of counselling notes. Once the DPP requests them, they have to be handed over to the defendant. The confidentiality of the counselling room is essential to allow the healing process. That is what it is there for. I checked the code of ethics of the organisation with which I was accredited and the only time I was permitted to break the confidentiality of that counselling room was when I felt somebody was a danger to themselves or to somebody else. This is something I had to do a couple of times over the years.

The amendment that the Minister proposes requires that pre-trial disclosure hearings take place in all cases where counselling notes are requested. The Minister contends that such an amendment would balance the constitutional rights of the accused to a fair trial with the rights of the complainant to privacy. Survivors wholeheartedly disagree with this Bill and do not believe that this Bill goes anywhere near close enough to upholding their rights. They contend it will continue to violate their rights and continue to cause significant psychological harms to survivors. To continue to allow the perpetrator to read the private, personal counselling notes of victims is inhumane and must be ended.

I am a member of the justice committee, as the Minister will know, and this point was made across party lines. Members of the Minister's party agreed that the use of counselling notes should be abolished when it comes to situations like this. Without this full ban, it will continue to retraumatise victims. It will stop victims from continuing with their lifesaving recovery or stop them from seeking justice to continue their healing. It will cause ever further delays in an already chaotic judicial system. Survivors also make the point that judges are not qualified counsellors or therapists. They have no understanding of third-hand information. I ask the Minister to accept any amendments that the Opposition proposes as this Bill progresses through the rest of the House, and to bear in mind the opinions and real-life experience of survivors and victims.

I thank Deputy Ward for sharing time. I want to talk about the offences under the Domestic Violence Act in this Bill. This is my first chance to talk about a profoundly courageous woman I have the privilege of knowing.

Margaret Loftus is a former member of an Garda Síochána who was married to another garda, Trevor Bolger. Trevor Bolger was violent, abusive and isolated Margaret from her family in Mayo. Events came to a head when Trevor Bolger viscously attacked Margaret and threatened to kill her after a family event. Margaret left Trevor Bolger, got a barring order and requested a transfer to Mayo to return to her supportive and caring family, who I also have the privilege of knowing. Margaret went through a horrendous ordeal in the family law courts and had a committal warrant served to send her to prison based on Trevor Bolger's assertions. Margaret was initially granted the transfer but shortly after, the behaviour of some gardaí became increasingly sinister. They began to interfere with her and her life.

It was very clear that an Garda Síochána, or some members of Garda Síochána, were siding with Margaret's ex-husband, barring order or no barring order. Her transfer was revoked so to remain with her family in Mayo, Margaret was advised to go on sick leave. While on sick leave, her pay was stopped on multiple occasions for spurious reasons. A disciplinary fine was attached to her file and taken from her wages, unknowingly to her, and was returned after she questioned it and followed it up, asking numerous times what it referred to.

Margaret requested the gardaí investigate her husband, his violence and his ongoing threats to kill her. Margaret could see on the Garda PULSE system that Trevor Bolger had checked her more than 20 times. Every time an incident occurred, he could see if she reported it or not. Margaret prepared her own investigation file and sent her statement directly to the office of the Garda Commissioner. While the investigation was under way - that is, while Trevor Bolger was under investigation for domestic violence and a threat to kill - he was promoted to detective, with glowing references from his sergeant and superintendent. He was given a gun.

Meanwhile, Trevor Bolger repeatedly looked Margaret up on the PULSE system and sent gardaí to her home in Mayo to carry out welfare checks on her children. Justin Kelly, who is now the Commissioner, was the first person to take her seriously. This gives me some hope. Margaret was emphatic in her statement that her journey through the family law courts was torturous. I believe her.

Hear, hear.

The fact that vital evidence that was given in the family law courts but was not allowed to be transferred over to be used in the criminal court is, I believe, a miscarriage of justice in its own right. A proper investigation was at last conducted and a file was sent to the DPP. The criminal Circuit Court granted Trevor Bolger full State legal aid throughout the whole court process. There was no means test or evaluation of assets carried out. He was suspended from an Garda Síochána with full pay. The criminal Circuit Court also accepted an application from Trevor Bolger to get a media gagging order on the court proceedings with full consent from the State. Margaret did not consent to this order and there was no legal basis for this order being made.

Eventually, the legal firm for the media got this application lifted so it could be reported on. Margaret was questioned twice by an Garda Síochána on articles that appeared in the media. Conor Lally, a journalist with The Irish Times, was also questioned. Margaret made contact with at least eight politicians over the years seeking help. Three of those were Ministers for justice at the time she made contact. One of those sent back an email to say he could not be of any assistance but was deeply troubled by what she had told him. Still, nothing was done.

The DPP took a plea deal. Before this plea deal, there was a disposition heard in court. Margaret was not happy with the way the State presented the case, so did some investigating herself. She realised the senior counsel assigned to the case by the State knew Trevor Bolger well and had worked with him on high profile drug cases previously. As Margaret queried this, the senior counsel removed herself from the case with no explanation given. Margaret's victim impact statement was censored by the defence and Trevor Bolger. She had to take out parts of it he was not happy with when the report was read out. Details of this case were reported by the media in 2019 and 2020.

Trevor Bolger pleaded guilty to a section 2 assault in the Circuit Court and was sentenced in January. The case was before the Circuit Court 55 times before this plea was entered. During these 55 times, Trevor Bolger was granted disclosure order after disclosure order to gain access to every inch of Margaret's life. He was facilitated to drag her through the courts a total of 58 times in all. Miriam O'Callaghan filmed an interview for "Prime Time" that was aired on Tuesday. Margaret has now left an Garda Síochána. Fiosrú is conducting a root and branch investigation into the case, attitudes to domestic violence and treatment of women on the force while Trevor was given a gun.

There are so many wider implications to this case that I am asking the Minister to meet with Margaret Loftus to address the critical issues she has raised and ensure that no other woman who is a victim of abuse from a member of an Garda Síochána is forced to go through this torturous journey.

Hear, hear.

I will be sharing time with my colleague, Deputy Conor Sheehan.

I do not like to criticise the Minister or his Department but bringing in a Bill in this way is crazy. There is so much in it. It is all over the place. That is why we wanted the Minister's speech. He said he spoke off the cuff. Frankly, most of the time he does.

I know.

On this occasion, he read it verbatim. The reason he read it verbatim was he has to be very careful about what he is saying on a lot of these things. From a legislative point of view, it is very tricky. This is not good practice and I am surprised at the Minister for behaving in this way in this House. This is so diverse. It includes pepper spray, community service orders, counselling records on sexual offences, sex for rent, changes to bail, remote hearings, electronic documents for court, DNA analysis, issues with outdoor seating for public houses, face coverings and an issue I truly welcome, namely the disregard of convictions relating to consensual same-sex activity. That is as diverse as you can get. It is crazy to do a Bill like this. A few of them I can maybe understand but a number of them deserve to be Bills on their own. A number of us here are on the justice committee. We did not even go through some of these in pre-legislative scrutiny because we did not know the Minister was doing this and he did not provide anything. This is not good practice. I know the Minister is only in his post a year but he is experienced. This is not the way to do things. The Minister should not be doing these things. It is an indictment of him and his Department that he is coming in here and throwing all of this at us, while bringing in a whole range of other amendments we have heard about in the media as well.

I will try to run through a number of the issues as quickly as I can. On the issue of pepper spray, our committee was pretty adamant that bringing in a tool like this into a prison service is not exactly good practice. If you listen to the Inspector of Prisons, I think he is on a different track from the Minister. I know the Minister has plans to bring in 1,500 extra prison spaces but if you look at the practice in the UK, you will basically be chasing them. The prisons will end up full again but you are not dealing with the issue. The conditions of the prisons in our country are an absolute disgrace to successive governments. The way they have been left is a disgrace. While I understand the Prison Officers' Association have views on this, the idea we will bring in such capacity into prisons is creating a huge amount of risk. I am concerned about that. I am also concerned about it because we have not had an analysis done in the form of a risk assessment. It will be piloted but we have not done a risk assessment. This is bizarre. It needs to be looked at again and we will certainly do so on Committee Stage.

On the changes the Minister is making to community service orders, I very much welcome these. This is something that would help the issues we have in our prisons. It is good practice and it is to be welcomed. The threshold of 24 months and the conditioning of how people will qualify for that really needs to be teased out but it is good practice. The issue I have here is how we are managing the Probation Service. If the Minister has met with it recently, the Probation Service will tell him to his face that it is so stretched. It simply does not have the resources and it does not have the personnel.

I know a number of people who work in the service, and they are absolutely stretched as far as they can go. They do not see how they can continue if there is not a complete relook at the way in which they are working. In tallying with this change, absolutely, the Minister is going to have to in some way relook at the Probation Service in a very supportive way, particularly in relation to bringing in more personnel to work there.

The issue of counselling records in sexual offences trials is going to be very difficult for the Minister. We believe, and our committee believes, very strongly that this issue has to be dealt with in such a way that this is not going to happen any more. I have met individuals who will not go for counselling. When that is something that comes out as a result of where we are in this country and the case law that has been there, that is deeply worrying. I believe the Minister's bona fides here are probably correct. I understand that this is very tricky constitutionally. I understand it is very tricky from a legislative point of view. I know the Minister is bringing in amendments, and I do not doubt his commitment. However, I am not sure he can actually narrow this down such that when it goes through the courts and through the actual cases of the future, he can separate it out and this would be allowed only in very specific cases, as he said, in relation to people getting a fair trial. I doubt it. There will be legal challenges left, right and centre. I believe there will be a precedent set then and it will fall. I need the Minister to think very carefully on this because I believe that when it comes to Committee Stage and Report Stage, this is, frankly, borderline impossible and he will have to go with the committee's recommendations. I think it is a big struggle for his backbenchers and for his colleagues as well. This is a topic we, as a Legislature, have to deal with, and deal with sensitively and right. I believe the Minister will have to go with the committee's decisions in relation to this because I am not sure that what he is proposing will be sustainable in law. It is definitely the trickiest part of this Bill. I urge the Minister to maybe listen again to all the groups we have met, such as the National Women's Council, One in Four and many more, in relation to this because he needs to reconsider this whole section and how he is going to go about it. I look forward to the Minister's amendments on Committee Stage, but I certainly do not believe this is going to be feasible in the way in which he is prescribing.

I am delighted to see that the Minister has finally come forward with legislation in relation to sex for rent. I commend him. I hope he respects the fact that the Labour Party and, indeed, my party colleague Senator Harmon brought forward a Bill on this well over six months ago. In fairness, the Minister met with her, and much of what she put forward is in this Bill. It is beyond time this was done. The Bill amends the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 and creates two new offences. From our perspective, this is very accurate. The first offence is where a person is offering a person accommodation in return for sexual activity in lieu of payment. The second is an offence of advertising or causing to be advertised an offer of accommodation in return for sexual activity in lieu of payment. This is beyond required. It is also important that this is being prescribed in the Bill in two different ways to avoid any form of doubt, which is the way it should be done.

The Minister has a range of other measures he is bringing forward as amendments. Before I go through those, in relation to the Bail Act, I am delighted the Minister is putting provisions in the section in relation to coercive control and also with regard to forced marriages. Both are very important areas. It is quite obvious that coercive control is becoming more of an issue. It lacked a definition, so it is very welcome that it has now been defined. It will be a substantive issue that can be used now in relation to the decisions for bail. Forced marriage, unfortunately, is also on the increase as our country changes and as different nationalities come in and everything else. This is something that also crops up quite a number of times. I very much welcome it. We could have looked at other areas in relation to bail, and we may come back with amendments on that as well.

Furthermore, the issues relating to court hearings and the electronic sharing of documents are something that should have been addressed years ago. I have actually flagged this myself. I have spoken in this Chamber about it. I have spoken to so many gardaí and people who work in the justice system about this. It is actually ridiculous. It is beyond time that was done.

We need further information regarding DNA analysis techniques and what the Minister is proposing in relation to missing persons. In principle, however, I believe we will be supportive.

Many people were probably not fully aware of the issues in relation to outdoor seating on public land. I am aware of them, and that needs to be closed off. That is to be welcomed.

We need to have a larger discussion in relation to the definitions behind how we are going to deal with face coverings. In principle, I agree with the Minister, but we need to look at the conditioning around how we are going to deal with that.

I also want to raise something I raised with the Minister earlier. Today, I published a Bill providing for an update to Coco's Law. I asked the Tánaiste that this issue be dealt with in the coming weeks to deal with the obvious issues in relation to what is happening with online e-commerce companies and online publishers and the fact there is a lacuna in the law. The reason I am raising it here is simple. This may be the avenue on Committee Stage - I do not really care whether it is the Labour Party or the Minister, if he can improve it - where we can bring in changes to ensure that we deal with this issue in a prompt and timely way. We believe there is a lacuna, and we have taken a lot of advice on the issue of where AI-generated or computer-generated images are being developed and then shared by e-commerce publishers. I do not call them platforms. They are publishers, the same as the Irish Independent, the Irish Examiner, The Times or anything else. They are publishers, and we have to have this scenario now whereby it is an offence for those who behave in such a way and who do this. Gráinne Seoige appeared before the Joint Committee on Arts, Media, Communications, Culture and Sport yesterday. It is quite obvious from talking to her and many others that the idea that An Garda Síochána can go around looking for a whole range of different phones is not sustainable. The Garda asks people for their phones, they say "No", that they are not giving the phone, and then the Garda has to get a court order to be able to get the phone. That is not sustainable. We have to deal with this at the stage of the actual publisher, whether that is X, Meta, TikTok, Google or hundreds of others. We must deal with it at that stage, where it is a criminal offence to aid and facilitate the distribution of such images. This issue will be coming in front of the Minister at Cabinet. I would hope that we can deal with this very quickly. This may be the vehicle by which we can do so. I wanted to raise that because, if necessary, we will bring it forward and, if necessary, we will do so in this Bill.

Before I let my colleague in, it is very important that I acknowledge the fact that the Minister will bring in through this Bill a disregard of historical convictions in relation to consensual same-sex activity pre 1993. I look forward to it; this is very much welcome. My colleague beside me, Deputy Nash, has been an advocate and has worked on this for well over a decade. In fact, he raised this so often in this Chamber and outside. He is to be commended hugely on it. The Minister might acknowledge campaigners Kieran Rose, my good friend Karl Hayden and Brian Sheehan, who are in the Gallery above us today along with Eddie McGuinness. They are prominent campaigners on behalf of the LGBT community who have put in massive numbers of hours, days, months and years campaigning for so many people to get those convictions from 1993 spent and disregarded.

This is very important legislation for them and for many others. I acknowledge and thank them for their campaigning over the past number of years.

I will start with what I welcome in the Bill, namely, as Deputy Kelly just noted, the disregard for people convicted of same-sex activity pre 1993. It is really important that we get this done and get it done quickly because those people are getting older. I commend the work done by my colleague Deputy Nash, who was heavily involved in organising, first, the apology, which was the start of a suite of measures to right a terrible historical wrong. The measures in the Bill to disregard those convictions are incredibly important.

I also welcome the provisions banning sex for rent, which is an issue mainly affecting marginalised women who are renting rooms and do not have own-door accommodation. This needs to be enacted as quickly as possible because these types of advertisements are still online. Senator Harmon introduced a Bill seeking to ban the practice in April 2025. It is really important that we do this.

The Bill includes provisions on the use of pepper spray. I took part last December in a visit to Limerick Prison organised by Deputy Carthy and the justice committee. I was shocked by the level of overcrowding, even though I had already seen the figures. There are 600 people on mattresses in our prison system. The female wing of Limerick Prison is at 163% capacity, which equates to 127 people for 56 beds. There has been an exponential rise in the number of people with mental health issues in the prison system. Our prisons are at breaking point. Some 77% to 78% of all committals are for 12 months or less and that percentage is rising. This is something we really need to address. There are far too many people in our prison system serving short sentences. We must find alternatives to custodial sentences for that group.

Violence between inmates rose by 31% in 2024, primarily because of overcrowding. My concern regarding the use of pepper spray is that, on the face of it, it might seem like a solution. However, having been implemented in the UK, there have been huge issues, for example with people being racially profiled. It is now even being used on young offenders there. That is totally unacceptable. No proper risk assessment has been done or published on the introduction of this measure. Arming prison officers will not address the underlying causes of violence between prisoners, which primarily are drugs and overcrowding. All of these factors are coming together to create a pot of tension. Adding pepper spray to that pot will not address the underlying issues.

I want to see an outright ban on the use of victims' counselling notes by the prosecution, as recommended by the Oireachtas justice committee, insofar as that is possible. In an ideal world, they should never be disclosed. I have spoken about this with survivors in my constituency, even as recently as 20 minutes before coming in here. One of them disclosed to me the sheer terror and trauma of having her intimate thoughts admitted as evidence in a case dealing with a sexual assault against her. This is one of the instances where our justice system is overtly paternalistic. It was designed and has been administered primarily by men. However, this is an issue that disproportionately affects women. We need a total recalibration in this regard. Many survivors who have been through our justice system say they felt the process of going through that system was worse than the crime perpetrated against them. We really need to come back and look again specifically at the counselling notes issue.

I welcome each of the provisions of the Bill because behind many of those provisions are either victims or groups who have campaigned for the Government to act. The Minister has hit the ground running in the past number of months. The breadth of the Bill demonstrates his good faith in having worked with many of the people who sought these provisions.

I spent all of Christmas listening to the Opposition telling us this is a do-nothing Government that has introduced no legislation. Now, apparently, there is too much in the legislation. I will leave it to the Opposition to make its case. A Bill of this nature is often about trying to get provisions into law as quickly as possible. That is not being done in order that the Government can tick a box but because there are groups that have been asking for these provisions to be included in Irish law. By including them in this Bill, they will go onto the Statute Book in a speedier way.

Behind many of the Bill's provisions are people who worked to secure them. I will start with the provisions mentioned by Deputy Nash, namely, those dealing with historical convictions for same-sex relations. I welcome to the Gallery my former Dublin City Council colleague Kieran Rose, along with Eddie, Karl, Brian and the many others who are here. Days like today do not happen by accident. They happen because people, having first put their head in their hands, then put their heads around a table and tried to seek changes to the law in a practical and determined way that would deliver results. The LGBT community in Ireland has had many celebrated days in public spaces, such as the forecourt of Dublin Castle. The very small number of people who were convicted for having same-sex relationships are the people who were treated most harshly by Irish society. While a Second Stage debate in the Dáil on a Thursday afternoon might not be the celebrated public event other LGBT events have been, it is an incredibly important one. We think of the people who faced those convictions and the unfair and unjust way Irish society treated them. It is only right, having come so far in terms of equality legislation, that they are not being left behind and were not forgotten. I appreciate the Minister's support in this regard.

A provision not included in the legislation is one to implement the proposed Jennie's law, which will be the subject of a different Bill the justice committee is considering. I commend the committee Cathaoirleach, Deputy Carthy, on the conduct of pre-legislative scrutiny yesterday. Not everything was shoehorned into this Bill. The Minister decided to leave out some measures in order to scrutinise them further. The Bill to implement Jennie's law is another example of an issue where he has listened to a group, responded to a need and brought forward a legislative proposal. Some of the proposals in the Bill before us were brought forward by Opposition Deputies and some by Government Deputies. I commend those Deputies on their efforts. There are days when one feels one has achieved very little in this House. However, the provisions in this Bill mean many Deputies will see their ideas and contributions brought into law. I particularly commend the people who campaigned for a ban on sex for rent. This is an important issue that was discussed at the housing committee.

I acknowledge the provisions to amend the Multi-Unit Developments Act. As a member of the public accounts committee, I am always very concerned about how we spend public money.

Due to the successful campaigning of the Construction Defects Alliance, Pat Montague and the many other people who have met us over the years on that issue, the Government will have a scheme that supports people with defective apartments. The mechanism by which we are addressing those defects and the financial vehicle we are using will be owners' management companies and in many cases these companies and their structures are not fit for purpose. They are not regulated correctly and both their makeup and their structure leaves a lot to be desired. I say that not due to any great conspiracy out there, as often it is a small number of residents in an apartment block who are left with the job of running an OMC. They often wrangle with the developer and wrestle with legacy issues. They do not have the same access to legal advice, and so on. Reform of the MUDS Act is incredibly important and the first step of that is for the Minister to transfer responsibility to the Minister for housing. The present Minister has discharged his duty on that issue and the pressure will now be on the Minister, Deputy Browne, who is already very keen to make amendments so when we start to distribute money for apartment defects we will know it is going to entities that are regulated. There should be a register of owners' management companies, a regulator of them and also a mechanism for people who are subject to such companies to resolve disputes. All this was dealt with in the legislation on apartment defects, so I will not dwell on that.

I note other provisions on pepper spray and note also the Minister's comments on the counselling notes. It is certainly a more tricky and difficult area but the Minister said we will see further amendments on Committee Stage, which I look forward to. I think everybody in this House is in the same place when it comes to what we can achieve. The question is around how we can achieve that. I know the Minister will do what is possible and perhaps we can push that as far as possible. I forget the phrasing he used but I think he referred to working within whatever constitutional limits are there. We need to go to the very edge of the limits of that in order to protect victims.

I note the provisions on the duties of the Chief Justice, and so on. We must always be very careful about the Judiciary. The Constitution obviously provides for the three branches of the Judiciary, the Government and the Oireachtas. There is incredible accountability for two of those branches almost daily in the media, in this House and so on and it is a matter for the Judiciary to respond to its democratic role in society. However, when you look at reactions like there were last week when there were reports that perhaps too lenient a sentence was given in a case involving a single-punch killing - I will not say anything about that case because it may be subject to appeal and I do not want to in any way interfere with it - it does make you, as a Member of the Oireachtas, reflect on how the same level of accountability that applies to these branches does not apply to the Judiciary. It is for the Chief Justice and the Judiciary to reflect on that themselves, to find ways in which they can build confidence and ways they can communicate with the public about why things happen. While we are all individual Members of this House, we also realise we are a collective and we regulate for the minority or regulate for individuals and the Judiciary has that responsibility too.

It is a far broader point and one that lies in the courts rather than here but how the Judiciary retains the confidence of the public in the area of sentencing is incredibly important. Last week there was huge hurt in my community and I am sure in many others there are often lingering questions about why something happened yet in a modern society we have no way of questioning or asking why something happened. On previous occasions we asked the courts to send a representative to our joint policing committee so they could talk to us about sentencing and we could talk to them about the impact sentencing has in a working-class area. They felt it was not appropriate for them to attend that JPC because of the separation of powers and perhaps I can understand that but on other occasions I have seen members of the Judiciary attend legal or academic conferences where they have spoken about events, often I suppose to do what I am asking them to, which is to maintain the confidence of the people. It is a very tricky area but we need to demand of them what is demanded of us, which is that they are accountable within the limits and the structures that the Courts Service and the Judiciary have.

I thank the Minister, in particular for the provisions of the Bill which I have highlighted.

To answer Deputy McAuliffe, I do not think the Opposition has any issue with legislation going through this Chamber. He has heard complaints about the lack of it going through up to now and I think he used the term "do-nothing Government" himself, so obviously it is working.

The rest of it is working.

However, the issue here is the time for dealing with the individual issues. A number of people have spoken about how this Bill definitely lives up to its name of "miscellaneous". There are a number of issues we all need to do proper due diligence on.

The one an awful lot of us intend to speak to are the provisions on counselling notes. We are talking about survivors who have been through the worst acts of sexual violence and who, in a very vulnerable time in their lives, went through counselling as a means of dealing with the particular act or acts that were done to them. What we do not need is to continue with an invasion of what should be privacy. This should be a means for them to deal with an absolute horror that was done to them and not something that could possibly be brought into a court in any way, shape or form. I accept the Minister is moving some of the journey but we really need to make sure whatever has to be done is done. He has questions there on constitutionality but we have to find the means for a solution that abates the fears of those who are victims and survivors. Anything else is just unfair and a continuation of a failure and the wrongs that were done to people. Whatever about any other specific issue being dealt with in the Bill, we should ensure the sanctity of counselling for people, and women in particular, who have been through absolute abject horror.

It is fair to say nobody is going to have an issue with dealing with sex for rent and the disgusting practices we have seen grow out of the housing crisis. We all know we need to deal with the-----

I am sorry, Deputy, but I just want to be sure you know there are minors in the Gallery and that their chaperones are aware of the content of the discussion. Please continue. I am sorry for interrupting.

They will be safe enough as I am moving on to community service orders. The Minister and I have had many interactions before in relation to all the good work the Garda does and the work done on early interventions, of which there are not enough. I have spoken many times before about the TEAM Project in Muirhevnamor and the youth diversion project operating out of the house in Cox's Demesne. They have done huge work, especially since they have been able to involve themselves in earlier interventions, but we need to see far more of that. I have said to the Minister more than once that there needs to be a proper, real discussion on the issues that are out there, particularly in relation to the complex cases caused by addiction, the drug menace, the 169 organised crime gangs that are in operation across Ireland and the drugs epidemic that is impacting across the entire society but which is particularly prevalent and harmful within working-class areas where people are sometimes under the jackboot. That means drug debt intimidation, violence and all the rest of it. There is also the estate management aspect and ensuring we have the addiction services, the early family interventions and ensuring we can look after our most vulnerable while also protecting those impacted by the chaos, the violence and all the rest of it.

As I said, it has most impact in working class areas.

All of us on the justice committee know this is a wide-ranging Bill. It is a fair reflection of how the Government is currently approaching the justice system. The Minister is often talked about in media circles as a Minister in a hurry. This Bill demonstrates that it is all hurry and very little pace because buried in these 33 sections are, admittedly, glimpses of what Ireland's judicial system could be - a country that treats survivors with dignity, with prisons that rehabilitate and that understands that housing, safety and justice are deeply connected - but what the Bill actually delivers does not come close to that standard. It is a timid, risk-averse version of reform. It shows a Government afraid to trust the evidence and the people who advance the evidence and afraid to be ambitious. The Bill represents a lot of things Ireland could be but clearly will not be under this Government.

Before I turn to what is in the Bill, I will address what has been deliberately left out on this Stage. The general scheme of this legislation contained a proposal to explicitly grant An Garda Síochána the power to require people to remove face coverings in public. That provision is not in the Bill before us today. The Minister has confirmed it will instead be introduced later by way of Committee Stage amendment. That is deeply cynical. I read the last part of the Minister's speech in which he talked about wishing to do that in collaboration with those who potentially have an opposing or different view. I think I speak for those of us on the justice committee when I say that would be a first. For example, we looked at pepper spray in prisons. We clearly all have a different view from the one being advanced by the Minister but there has been no attempt to collaborate on that. The absence of the provision and how the Minister intends to approach face coverings could have been put into the Bill and we could have understood exactly what we will be seeking to amend, modify or argue against, or if the Minister had won the argument, that would be fair enough. That is what parliamentary debate is for. Its exclusion speaks to homework unfinished.

If the Government believes it necessary and proportionate to change Garda powers, it should have been included in the Bill on publication and debated openly on Second Stage, where questions of principle clearly belong. Removing it now, only to insert it later on Committee Stage, ensures less time, less visibility and less scrutiny of a significant expansion of policing powers. An Garda SÍochána already has extensive powers under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 to deal with threatening, intimidating and abusive behaviour. That analysis is shared by the Bar Council. The question is not whether gardaí need this tool but whether the new powers are necessary, proportionate and legally sound and we should be able to debate the Minister's proposal on this Stage.

Let me turn to pepper sprays in prisons. I think my view is echoed by all members of the justice committee that this is one of the most dangerous provisions in this legislation. The proposal is to arm prison officers with incapacitant spray. The Government presents it as a safety measure but the evidence clearly says the opposite. The Oireachtas justice committee, after hearing from human rights experts, prison specialists and international researchers, recommended this proposal be removed in its entirety, not amended or softened, but removed. We concluded that prison officers should not be armed with chemical spray at all. The reason is that the evidence from comparable jurisdictions is damning.

I find it borderline insulting for the Minister to use overcrowding as a justification for a bad policy, when overcrowding is also a consequence of numerous other bad policies. HM Prison and Probation Service, when evaluating the use of PAVA spray in England and Wales, found it was "unable to conclusively demonstrate that the use of PAVA had any direct impact on levels of prison violence". The committee heard that in English and Welsh prisons, one third of uses were found to be unjustified, one quarter of uses were where alternatives existed and nearly two thirds of uses breached operational guidance. That means, in practice, chemical weapons are not used as a last resort. They are used when staff are stressed, when tempers are high, when systems are failing. Yet, the Government looked at all that, with the conditions of our prisons in mind, and still decided to proceeded, certainly not because the evidence supports it - if there is evidence supporting it, I would like the Minister to present it to us - but because overcrowding has made prisons more volatile and rather than fixing overcrowding, the Government has chosen to weaponise staff. That is not a safety policy. Those of us who have visited prisons, heard testimony - and I will go into the prison inspector's testimony shortly - and understand the nature and psychology of people in prisons where there is overcrowding know there is no way to spray an incapacitant spray in a overcrowded hallway and not impact the wider prison population. It is grotesquely unjustifiable in the conditions.

Turning to community sanctions on the other side of the justice system this legislation covers, the Bill introduces modest changes to community service orders and that is welcome. However, let us be honest about the scale of the crisis we are in. Our prisons are operating miles beyond capacity. People are sleeping on floors every night. Rehabilitation, where it may have existed previously, has collapsed and people are quite literally dying in our prison system. The year before last, we had the highest level of prison deaths since records began.

I am not sure whether the Minister looked at the justice committee testimony two weeks ago when the Inspector of Prisons was there. Even the jaws of those of us who asked for these discussions were on the floor due to the frankness with which the Inspector of Prisons spoke about conditions tantamount to torture and we are now bringing incapacitant spray into that environment. We will look back at this period with horror, with how casually we allowed human beings to be warehoused in degrading conditions. This change, where a change is being offered, is a slight tweak that will not address the issue it seeks to serve. It is a bare minimum. The joint committee explicitly called for much more. We called as a matter of urgency for the publication of the review of the criminal justice (community sanctions) Bill 2014, a Bill that would dramatically expand alternatives to custody, give judges a real menu of options and take immediate pressure off overcrowded prisons. Yet, 12 years later that Bill is nowhere to be seen.

The Government knows exactly what would relieve the pressure but it is clearly unwilling to do it. Worse still, it ignored the committee's recommendation to include probation orders in the legislation where community service is not appropriate. That was an amendment I brought forward, which would have expanded non-custodial sentences even further. Again, there is an absence of ambition, no urgency and no vision.

I am conscious that when those of us in the Chamber and at committees speak publicly, as I am now, about prison conditions, it is not a soft-on-crime approach. It is not a non-victim-centred approach either. The evidence speaks for itself. Almost seven out of ten people who enter our prison system will reoffend within three years. People who go into our prison systems have committed a crime. They have impacted people often in incredibly harmful ways and justice absolutely needs to served but too often that is the outcome for people going into prison. The profile of prisoners has been well demonstrated, including backgrounds, conditions of poverty and poor mental health. We were in Limerick prison a few weeks ago where we met a gentleman on the floor who did not even realise he was in prison, such was the extent of his Alzheimer's disease. Even if we take it as a whole, seven out of ten people going to prison should be the point where the State intervenes to address the factors by which we stop the next reoffending, the next victims being hurt and the next communities being terrorised. Quite clearly, there is no capacity to do that in our prison system, which is crumbling with antiquated architecture, buildings that are freezing cold, has people sleeping on the floor and has no access to proper rehabilitative outputs that could genuinely make prisoners play a constructive part in communities when they come out.

I will turn to counselling records. There is no part of this Bill that exposes the moral limits of the Government more starkly than in what it does to survivors of sexual violence. Right now, defence teams can apply to access survivors' therapy records. We all know that. It is well documented. Everyone across the Chamber, no matter the political colours they wear, accepts that is wrong. These are the notes about when someone finally says the unsayable, when they try to process the violence done to them, where trust and safety are supposed to exist and somehow, our judicial system has decided that those notes, those insights to trauma, those written words that capture probably decades of oppression, victimhood, beatings and abuse are all fair game for a victim's judicial exploitation at trial.

The justice committee heard overwhelming evidence on this and recommended in no uncertain terms, a complete and unconditional ban on the use of counselling records in sexual offence trials because survivors told us and we listened. I do not doubt for a second they have told the Minister also and he has listened too. I accept that completely. These applications are traumatising, they deter reporting and stop people seeking therapy at all. I have said it previously and I will continue to say it. We do not subpoena a priest's confession and we do not demand the notes of a TD's therapist, but a rape survivor's mind is apparently up for cross examination.

We tell women to come forward, we tell them we believe them and then we betray them in the most intimate way imaginable. Yes, I understand there are constitutional complexities, as the Minister said, and he referred to the Attorney General's advice, but the laws of this land are not inscribed on a tablet upon a mountain top. The laws of the land are written down and can be modernised. If it is a requirement that we need a referendum to modernise the Constitution, I expect the Minister to lead on it because we cannot have a scenario where the opposite of justice - the antithesis of justice - happens, which is the re-traumatising of victims, and that is the scenario we have today. If it happens that the Minister's advice is better than the advice some of us will have when we table amendments on Committee Stage, let us modernise the Constitution because this cannot be allowed to continue.

When we talk about the issue of sex for rent, or sexual exploitation for rent, it is the exact same story. We all agree and welcome aspects of this Bill that deal with that unimaginably cruel practice. My colleague Deputy O'Callaghan introduced a number of Bills in the previous Dáil on this. We all agree it is an exploitation and it is wrong. However, when the committee recommended real protections such as extending tenancy rights, regulating platforms and protecting people in informal housing, the response of the Government as a whole and not just simply the Minister was "Well, that is a housing problem", as if anyone in the country has faith left in the Department of housing, the same Department that has delivered thousands of homeless children and whose failures has forced people into desperate situations. We cannot separate sexual exploitation from housing insecurity but the Government has found a way to avoid responsibility.

It is the same with the area of coercive control, which is also dealt with, to a point, in the Bill. I am not going to refer to any particular case that has recently been in the media, but recent cases have demonstrated how far we have to go when it comes to the area of coercive control and exploitation.

Every Part of this Bill tells the same story: pepper spray instead of prison reform; minimal community sanctions instead of a real alternative; half measures for survivors; book passing on housing and the exploitation that exists within that grotesque area of failure; and now procedural gamesmanship on Garda powers. Yet, inside this Bill, we can still see the outlay of a different Ireland: prisons that rehabilitate instead of brutalise; a justice system that protects survivors; and housing that does not force people into exploitation. There is clearly money in our economy. We have the evidence and committee recommendations but we do not currently have a Government brave enough to follow them. The Bill shows everything that Ireland could be but it also shows us we are not there yet until we change the politics that produced it and keep getting legislation that gestures justice while quietly entrenching injustice.

I am grateful and welcome the opportunity to comment on the Bill.

To remind people how we get to a stage like this in a democracy, people bring forward ideas, concerns or observations regarding how our criminal law system operates. In a political party like mine, Fianna Fáil, we try to take these on board and prepare position papers on them and put those out to expert and stakeholder groups to get their views on them. They then eventually form part of a party political manifesto. Those expert stakeholders will also make their views known to other parties and in this case, they form part of a programme for Government. It is a bottom-up process where ordinary people may express their views on the law, gaps in the law and concerns about perhaps particular laws that need to be amended or some laws that are not actually in place at all and need to be put in place. They become part of a programme for Government. In the case of justice, it is the role and responsibility of the Minister for justice to do their best to implement those laws.

I regard this as an omnibus Bill, where the Minister is trying to successfully bring several issues the Government parties made commitments on in its programme for Government. It is his role to bring those before this House and to enact them. In that sense, it is democracy at work and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on what I believe is a significant and far-reaching Bill. Is it perfect and is it likely to be perfect? Probably not, and future Ministers for justice will have to come back and do more work and respond to the needs of society as they evolve.

However, it responds to real challenges we face at present in our justice system and delivers on important commitments in the programme for Government. People voted for parties on the basis of what we committed to in the programme for Government. That is why Deputy O'Callaghan is the Minister for justice. It also speaks to something deeper, which is how we as legislators seek to do our best to uphold the dignity, safety and justice for people in our society who often find themselves at their most vulnerable. It also seeks to address the practical requirements around things as normal as licensing laws to try to clarify some of the issues in that regard.

Before coming into parliamentary political life, I practised for a decade as a psychotherapist and I sat with people in moments where they felt broken, ashamed, frightened or unsure of their place in the world. I probably experienced many of those feelings myself. Many of those who came through my door had experienced some kind of trauma, sometimes sexual trauma, coercion or other kinds of emotional impact in their lives. I learned this trauma often happens in silence but the impacts echo through every part of a person's life. That experience has stayed with me and has also, in part, shaped my understanding of the justice system and the need for trauma-informed practices, as well as the immense courage required for victims to come forward. It is from that perspective that I strongly welcome several elements of this Bill, particularly those dealing with sexual offences, privacy and exploitation.

Without getting into too much detail, I want to make a passing comment about the notes of a psychotherapist because they can differ from time to time. In my experience, it is not a diary of every single word a client comes to tell you. You do not record in writing every single word. That is not your responsibility and not why they have come to you. It is your response, how you contain what they are saying, how you respond and how you perceive the impact that this particular experience has had on them, what their needs are as a victim of that particular experience. They are two very brief things I see as the role of a psychotherapist. It is not to write down word for word - almost in evidence or to record in evidence - with a view to this coming before a court. It is doing your best as a psychotherapist in the role to respond and to hear the key things that particular client has experienced.

I know the sacredness of that therapeutic space and it is not exclusive to therapy. The previous speaker referred to other professionals who have what could be considered a sacred or secretive space in which people convey information on the basis that this information will not ever be betrayed.

The law, as the Minister said, governing disclosure of these records was significantly reformed almost ten years ago with the introduction of the Criminal Evidence Act. The intention was a good one, to strike a fair balance between an accused person's right to a fair trial and a complainant's right to privacy. The intention was that a judge, following a proper hearing, would decide whether any part of those records was relevant and ought to be disclosed but in practice, perhaps that is not what was happening. Victims have sometimes felt compelled to waive their right to a judicial hearing, fearing that asserting their privacy might somehow be interpreted as obstructing justice, jeopardising the prosecution, or causing delay. As a result their counselling records, which are sometimes the most intimate words they have ever spoken, have been handed over routinely. This was never the intention of the Oireachtas. The Bill fixes any fundamental flaws by requiring a disclosure hearing in every single case. That is such a positive development. Victims will not have to choose between the privacy of whatever record of their counselling sessions has been kept and the pursuit of justice. As I understand it, a judge will examine the records, the victim will always have legal representation and the court will decide what, if anything, should be shared and under what strict conditions.

I will move on to a number of other issues, one of which has been well covered, namely the practice known as sex for rent. I want to address that deeply disturbing practice and welcome the fact that the Minister is doing his utmost legally to ensure that it is prevented by criminalising two specific actions in this Bill. I support him in legalising the use of incapacitant spray by prison officers. Ireland is one of the very few EU states where prison officers cannot currently use incapacitant spray and the Bill removes that legal anomaly. This is not just to protect prison officers but also to protect other prisoners from aggressive and violent behaviour by some of their fellow inmates. It is a practical and proportionate measure that aligns us with international norms, while keeping the safety of both staff and those in custody at the forefront.

On prison overcrowding and community sanctions, the Minister has gestured towards this a number of times in previous speeches. I agree that for what we would call petty or minor crimes, which are still crimes and which have impacted individuals, we should not be locking people up. It is not just about overcrowding, which is what motivates him. It is also about putting people in jail for what are petty crimes. Clearly such crimes do have an impact and a price has to be paid for them. However, as a society, we probably do not know enough about community service. In my time as a county councillor I was familiar with some community service activities that took place and were implemented by the Courts Service in conjunction with local authorities. These included the cleaning of signage and similar activities. It might be helpful to publish a list of community service activities to make people more aware. That said, I do not want to create a situation where people walking down a street who see road signs being cleaned know that the people cleaning them are prisoners. I am not sure the average citizen has any notion of what community service involves but I support the Minister in that regard.

The DNA analysis in missing person cases provision is also welcome. I want to highlight the Bill's provision enabling the use of advanced DNA identification in missing person cases. Forensic Science Ireland believes that these enhanced techniques will improve the likelihood of resolving both current and historical cases. I come now to what I would call the housekeeping elements of the Bill, one of which relates to outdoor seating for licensed premises. I welcome the regularising of that which will mean that the courts are not taken up with such matters every six months or every year.

I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister now, although I do not think he can include it in this Bill. I have written to him previously about it and I am sure others have done so too. I refer to victims of physical or sexual abuse, often pretty violent abuse, who are terrified when the perpetrators of that abuse are due to be released. I speak of cases where perpetrators have been successfully prosecuted, convicted and have served jail sentences, whether long or short. Sometimes the sentences may seem too lenient but victims are terrified at the prospect of their release. Female constituents in particular have written to me over the years because they were really terrified when they got word that the man who inflicted physical damage on them or a family member was to be released back in to public life in short period of time. They felt exceptionally vulnerable around them. I do not know what we can do as a society to provide additional short- to medium-term protections for victims of crime in those cases. I know, having brought this to the Minister's attention, that it is something that he will look at. It is a live issue for victims of crime, particularly violent crime. I welcome the Bill and thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to participate in this debate.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill, notwithstanding the well-made points that have been raised regarding its miscellaneous nature and the number and range of proposals and measures therein. The Bill presents itself as progress but on the most contentious issue before us, the use of counselling notes in sexual violence trials, it represents a profound failure of ambition and a direct rejection of the calls of victims, survivors and experts. For years survivors and their advocates have campaigned with one clear, unequivocal demand, which is a full and outright ban on the disclosure and use of counselling notes in these trials. They have spoken with devastating clarity about the reality that the mere prospect of their most private, therapeutic conversations being pored over in court forces an impossible choice between healing or justice, court or counselling. This practice has become the norm with devastating consequences, deterring victims from seeking vital counselling and weaponising their healing process against them. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, chaired by my party colleague Deputy Carthy heard this evidence. They listened and their pre-legislative scrutiny, PLS, report recommended a full ban. What does this legislation offer? It offers a provision that makes a disclosure hearing mandatory in all cases. With respect, this is not reform but a rebranding of the broken and harmful status quo. This Bill, as it stands, does not end the practice but institutionalises it. It strips away the victims' remaining shred of autonomy, the right to say "No" to the request and places the decision solely in the hands of a judge. While we all respect the Judiciary, its members are trained to assess evidence but counselling notes are not evidence. They are third-party interpretive records, therapeutic tools created in the context of care, not legal precision.

The Minister speaks of balancing rights but this proposal tips the scales further against the victim. It tells survivors that their deeply personal journey through trauma, their rawest moments in therapy are now default material for legal scrutiny. It tells therapists that their notes, written to aid healing, may become fodder for cross-examination. This will retraumatise and deter. The Minister points towards possible amendments in relation to the presumption of non-disclosure and the expansion of definitions but I have very serious concerns about anything short of an outright ban. One thing is clear; this legislation in its current form falls far short. It ignores the recommendations of the Oireachtas committee on justice, the calls of Grevio and the united voices of survivors and support services. This section of the Bill is unacceptable and must be fundamentally amended on Committee Stage. We owe it to every survivor who has been forced to relive his or her trauma in the witness box, to every person currently avoiding counselling for fear of these notes being used and to all future victims who deserve a justice system that protects rather than persecutes them. I urge all TDs to support the necessary changes on Committee Stage to finally deliver just such a system.

I welcome the survivors, therapists and campaigners who have come to the Dáil today, including those who have campaigned on the issue of an amnesty for same-sex relations crime in the past. I do not know if they are still here. The issue in this Bill that has dominated is that of the use of counselling notes. There are many survivors here today. I cannot mention them all but will mention a few.

Some of those who played a role are here. I will mention Hazel Behan, the only survivor who got to testify in front of the justice committee. That was the Minister's pre-legislative scrutiny. Paula Doyle is here today and has also played a key role in talking to TDs and Senators. I want to mention others who the Minister met. Sarah Grace has campaigned on this for many years and has played a leading role in highlighting this in the last number of years. I know the Minister met Ciara Mangan and Donna McCarthy as well. The Minister has spoken to survivors, but I am afraid he has not listened to what they had to say.

I also want to mention the therapists who have played a key role in the past year in particular on this issue. Barbara Kelly is a psychotherapist and set up an organisation, Therapists Against Harm, on foot of what has happened. Therapists are no longer willing to go along with this abuse of their clients. While one of the previous speakers talked about welcoming this, this is not welcomed by any of the professional bodies. The Psychology Society of Ireland and all of the therapist groups have called for a ban on this completely, as have many others who I will mention again.

I am going to begin with the counselling notes and I will mention other things that are in the Bill. I think it is a shame. Somebody said that the Minister was giving out. We did not say he had to put everything into one law. He can pass laws. Some of these things should not be together and should be distinct. There should be a Bill to outlaw victim blaming and all the abuse and misogynistic practices that are going on in the courts. The counselling notes issue should be dealt with separately. It is too big an issue. It should not be put in with other things that are good in the Bill and that people want to vote for. There are also things that are bad in the Bill, such as the proposal to introduce pepper spray into overcrowded prisons and so on.

I want to mention the counselling notes first. This week, Margaret Loftus stood outside a court and told us that the legal system had done as much damage to her as the violence she faced. It is yet another survivor telling us this. One of the big reasons that people do not bother reporting or prosecuting, and that attrition rates are so low in terms of these trials, are practices like this - people having to have their private thoughts used against them. Every woman in the country is wondering what is the point of prosecuting a case in this country, particularly when they see the likes of what happened this week. Margaret Loftus, who was a garda, could not even get justice. A former woman garda could not get justice against the boys' club in the gardaí. That is what happened.

The Minister spoke about "balance". There is no balance. Sexual violence is nearly an unprosecuted crime. That is the reality. There is so much of it that does not even get talked about or reported and then there is the level that is prosecuted. What about that balance? We need to rebalance in favour of victims and survivors. The Minister is from a barrister background and I fear that he is imbued in the status quo of the Judiciary. I really feel that because he has been told again and again about this issue. It is a rarefied place where there is routine victim blaming. It is male dominated and very privileged. The Judiciary is privileged - I am sorry - and the Minister does not seem to get it.

A number of survivors want me to say that they are annoyed that the Minister continually uses the word "distress" to describe the impact of this. It is a lot more than distress; it is psychological damage. I really fear that he does not get the psychological harm that is done to people as a result of this. They are not damsels in distress. It is a lot more than that. The Minister is bringing in a law on the basis of minimising the damage and he really does not understand it.

I also want to make an extremely important point. The Minister is bringing in a mandatory disclosure hearing and taking any agency away from the victim and passing total agency over to a judge. I know the Minister has great faith in judges, but I do not think the general population has the same absolute faith that he has. Let us look at Canada where this system is in place. The Minister's hope and claim is that when we have these hearings and a judge will decide, there will hardly ever be any demand for these notes. It is not true. They have this system in Canada. They introduced it in 2020. I will give the House the figures for Canada, where the system is more robust. I have not seen the wording of what the Minister is proposing. What is relevant? How is a judge going to decide? Has the Minister any more information? He says he is going to back with some on Committee Stage. He should not have come back with such flimsy stuff a year after this was raised. A defence can ask for counselling records and it automatically goes to a hearing. That is what happens in Canada. Rather than decreasing submissions from defences for records, they have actually increased in Canada. From 2015 to 2019, the years before the implementation of the system in 2020, some 19% of victims had their records asked for. From 2020 to 2024, some 29% of victims had their counselling records accessed. It did nothing to decrease the demand from defences for notes. There is no proof that what the Government is proposing to bring in will work.

I want to give the House more figures from Canada, where there is an ombudsperson for victims. They have done huge research into the role of the judicial process on this counselling notes issue. They surveyed 1,000 victims from 2024 to 2025. I will briefly give the House some idea of the massive psychological damage that something like this counselling notes issue can cause. Some 13% chose not to report to the police because they wanted to take part in counselling. Some 12% of the 1,000 people they interviewed were advised not to speak to a therapist because their private records could be subpoenaed. Some 20% wanted to speak with a counsellor but felt like they could not because their private records would be subpoenaed. The suicide ideation rate was off the charts. Some 13% had thoughts of suicide, particularly in relation to their therapy notes and other things like that, but particularly their therapy notes being accessed. This is a significant issue for people. I really do not think the Minister is taking it on board.

I want to mention one other case. Paula Doyle has spoken about this in public and at the committee. She asked me to particularly mention that after the horrific rape she suffered, she could not touch or hug her children. She felt that she was contaminated and that her body was defiled. She did not want it to make contact with any other innocent person. That is horrific and is the outcome of being sexually assaulted. That was used against her in court because she had said it in therapy. She was asked: "What kind of mother are you if you cannot touch your own children?". Things like the morning-after pill, which she mentioned in therapy, were also brought up.

The Minister has never told anyone where it has been shown that there is any evidential value in these notes. Why do we need this great system? It is purely to find a nugget that can be used to undermine a person's character and to assassinate the character of the victim who is the complainant. That is all it is. I say it is misogynistic because it is mainly women, but I was approached by a man who thanked me for raising concerns about the Bill because his notes had been accessed. This can happen to men. It can happen to child victims of sexual abuse as well. I wanted to stress that because I wonder about what he has come back to the House with. The easiest thing to do was to revert back and take away the waiver. It is not enough.

I want to quickly make a few points on what the Minister could do. There are a couple of ways around this. The Minister could, for example, make these counselling notes privileged. We have loads of privilege in our society and our legal system. I will give a couple of examples. We have privilege for the legal profession, which means there is privilege between lawyers and their clients. We have sacerdotal privilege, which means priests are not compelled to go in front of a trial and outline what was said to them in the confessional.

There is Cabinet confidentiality. Journalists’ sources are confidential. I realise that a person might not have full privilege, but there is full or partial privilege in all of these cases. There is also parliamentary privilege. I can stand up today and say all sorts of things but I cannot be called to court over them. There is also spousal privilege. I am sure the Minister has a huge legal brain, so he can find a way to address this. He just has not been bothered enough. I do not believe it is bothering him as much as it should be.

There is a way to address this within the bounds of our Constitution. The Oireachtas can weigh up the conflict of rights. The Minister mentioned only the right to privacy, but people have other rights. He is restricting his consideration to the right to privacy. Is he telling me that the Irish Constitution states people can be degraded routinely or that victims of crime should be degraded daily in our courts? There are other rights, including rights to access justice, healing, therapy and healthcare. There are all sorts of things. There are competing rights and the Oireachtas could have drafted a law that would have made it very clear where the balance should lie.

I will not have time to go into everything. We know the figures for gender-based violence are off the charts. Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has the highest number of calls. The Garda has also had a high number. Therefore, this is an important issue. I was going to talk to the Minister about other survivors and what they have said but I believe I have made the point about the damage done.

I want to mention therapy briefly, because therapists are disgusted with this legislation as well. Dr. Niamh Ní Dhomhnaill, who is a survivor of rape and a chartered clinical psychologist, has campaigned widely in the past couple of years to get her professional body to come out against the practice of using counselling notes. She has stated that therapy can offer a space to make sense of the pain, confusion and stuckness that trauma creates in us, and also that it is supposed to be a place to explore in safety and without fear of repercussions. This is not possible if you know something you say could potentially be used against you.

The organisations that have said this law should not proceed as it currently stands are Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, the National Women’s Council of Ireland, the Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, the Psychological Society of Ireland, the Irish Council for Psychotherapy, Therapists Against Harm, Beyond Surviving, Éist, the Oireachtas justice committee, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and the Irish Association of Humanistic and Integrative Psychotherapists. I am sure there are many more. There has been a groundswell of opinion on the practice. People are disgusted when they hear this is happening.

I direct the Minister again to the reasons sexual crime is not reported. There is fear of not being believed and there is shame. The lack of faith in the justice system is a major reason. The Minister could restore some faith by finding a way to put records out of reach. I am disappointed that the Minister has not come back with something more than he has come back with. People are not taking cases for many reasons. One of them is that the system is so traumatic and another is the use of counselling notes. I emphasise that therapy is not linear. You could say something one day and it could be counteracted by how you feel on another day.

Judges are not experts in analysing therapy notes. Why should they be regarded as such? No offence, but many judges are not even receiving training on gender-based violence. It is not compulsory anyway. How are judges supposed to become experts in analysing counselling notes and understanding self-blame, shame and everything else that could be used against victims? The same applies to solicitors and juries. The Minister needs to go completely back to the drawing board.

I want to finish by mentioning some other issues that arise from this Bill, one being that of pepper spray in prisons. We heard testimony last week indicating that 150 prisoners were lying on mattresses in shared cells. Pepper spray is being introduced into that mix. We know from scientific data that if people have weaponry, they are likely to use it. Let us set up a proper prison system where people have space and so on. Many people are in prison because of the likes of a drug addiction, in respect of which they need healthcare rather than imprisonment. It was found in a six-month pilot programme in England and Wales that one in four uses of pepper spray was inappropriate or unnecessary. This shows it will be used in the wrong places.

I want to mention briefly the question of so-called "sex for rent". I agree that the proper term is "sexual exploitation" because of the housing crisis. I think I was one of the first TDs to raise this, not in the last Dáil but in the previous one. I was approached about a particular case. I welcome any law that will make things more difficult for perpetrators. I feel it would be very difficult for someone to take a case under any law because of the imbalance of power between landlords and tenants created by the Government’s failure to deal with the horrific housing crisis over the past 12 or 13 years. Unless that imbalance is corrected, it will remain difficult.

I reiterate that survivors have asked for a vote to be called on this Bill. I understand this is difficult because there are many provisions in it. Some Deputies may want to vote for some elements of it and not for others. However, it is important to send a message to the Government that there is anger and annoyance over the issues that have not been addressed. Therefore, I will be calling a vote at the end of this debate.

We are also calling for action at local level. I see a Fine Gael TD here now, which is great, but nobody from Fine Gael has spoken. A couple of Members from Fianna Fáil have spoken. A process of education is still needed on this issue, particularly throughout the Government ranks. People are coming in to say all sorts of things. This Bill is not the solution that people have asked for. It is not the solution that Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, which probably deals with more victims of sexual violence now than ever before, has called for. It is not the solution called for by those at the front line, including therapists or survivors, so the Minister needs to do a lot better.

This Bill is a mixed bag. There are some positive changes and some technical ones that will add efficiencies and so on, but we have some serious concerns about it.

I commend Margaret Loftus from County Mayo on her bravery. Margaret suffered horrendous domestic violence. She stated to the media this week that the judicial process was as traumatising and damaging as the abuse itself. She is an incredibly brave woman who endured up to 58 court hearings over 13 to 14 years. She fought over so many years simply to have her case heard. The issues with the judicial system in this case are quite extraordinary. First, there was inaction and silence when the case was first reported. Margaret was a member of the Garda and so too was her partner. That is a major issue. I ask the Minister to follow up with the Garda Commissioner to ensure that such cases are taken seriously and that action follows.

Her abuser subsequently went on to be promoted and was even given a firearm in the force. There were hugely excessive delays and relentless court hearings in relation to this case. The bravery of this woman should be recognised and noted. Indeed this case would be worth looking at by the Minister with his officials to ensure no woman should have to undergo such abuse and so many years of fighting for justice.

I want to touch upon other aspects of the legislation. First, I welcome the prison officer safety aspect, which will allow prison officers to have incapacitant spray like pepper spray. What is happening in the prisons is horrendous, with overcrowding and so on. This will be a positive aspect. Anything that helps and protects front-line services and the men and women who go out to do their jobs should be commended. I am concerned by comments in this House that suggested that such a move would be to weaponise the prison officers. That is an extraordinary statement. Prison officers work under incredibly difficult circumstances. In regard to anything that can help them in their duties, we must remember that prison officers are not going to use pepper spray willy-nilly. This should and will be a last resort and I think we should be supporting our front-line gardaí and prison officers as much as possible.

In relation to the sex-for-rent issue, I welcome the change. It is quite extraordinary that we live in a society where the housing crisis has reached a stage where women feel they have to resort to this. We are all familiar with the queues of people looking for rooms. I spoke to a landlord the other day. She said she listed a room in Dublin and had a thousand emails over a 24-hour period. When you see that level of demand, you see the real crisis and emergency situation in which so many people find themselves, particularly immigrants into this country. They are, in many ways, the most vulnerable and susceptible to having to go to such lengths. I welcome that aspect of this Bill.

I welcome the extra protection for survivors in respect of counselling notes. There have been many positive suggestions in the Chamber in relation to going further to protect survivors and to ensure they have their privacy protected as much as possible. There is no doubt that we need to be mindful of the question of constitutionality as well. It is important that we try as best we can for the victims to get the balance right.

One aspect of the Bill I am hugely concerned with is the community service aspect. The Bill outlines that it obliges the courts to consider community service orders for sentences up to 24 months. The current threshold is 12 months. It goes on to say that judges must give reasons if they decide to impose a community service order. In other words, it appears that the Government is directing judges with regard to preferring the option of community service orders. The types of crimes that will be considered here are drug dealing and possession with intent to supply, serious theft, burglaries and assault causing harm. I want to be very clear that drug dealing is not a minor offence. I am very fearful that this Bill would suggest that a person who is drug dealing in a community may be given time with the Tidy Towns, for example. That sends a very poor message.

There are major issues with burglaries and thefts in rural Ireland. I know families who have been terrorised by burglaries. There have been sprees of burglaries in certain areas. I know of a woman who was living on her own in County Mayo but will no longer go back to that independent living, such is the devastating impact of the burglary of her property. The suggestion here is that these people may be given community service orders and I think this is a very worrying move. We must be tough on crime. We must ensure that when individuals perpetrate crimes that have such damaging and lasting consequences on their fellow citizens, they experience the full wrath of the law. Burglary and coming into someone's home has a devastating impact. If we are going to move in this direction, we are ultimately going to facilitate such aspects.

Community service orders have a place but the conditions must be incredibly strict and I do not see that in this Bill. If it is a person's first offence and they have a good, clean record of working and contributing, perhaps we should consider such measures. We will be proposing amendments in relation to this. We want to make sure we do not use this option for repeat offenders. When this story broke, families across County Mayo were shocked. They could not believe it. The consequences may be significant for the Garda Síochána as well. Garda morale is already low and we need to protect and enhance it. If a garda spends a huge amount of time and resources prosecuting a criminal for a burglary at a house, and sees that a lady who was living on her own is terrorised and will not go back to that home, and then the judge turns around and sends him to the local Tidy Towns, that is a very worrying legislative provision. I want to see a provision that ensures this will not be an option for repeat offenders.

Free legal aid also needs to be looked at for repeat offenders. First, free legal aid is not free. It costs the taxpayer. In 2024, it cost the taxpayer €113 million. For repeat offenders, free legal aid should be taken from their social welfare. It is only right and proper. It is quite incredible to think that an individual who shows blatant disregard for the laws of the land can find themselves in front of a judge ten, 20, 30, 100 or 200 times, and each and every time they can avail of free legal aid without any cost to that individual. That is wrong. We must be tough on crime.

I welcome some aspects of this Bill but the aspect in regard to community service orders needs to be looked at. We will be tabling amendments and I hope the Minister will consider them on their merits. I hope we can have progress on this.

There are many aspects of this Bill that I welcome. In particular, in relation to so-called sex for rent, I welcome the protections that will be afforded to people who are victims of such behaviour by ruthless landlords. I also welcome the detail in regard to the complex network analysis, CNA, techniques in locating missing persons. Unfortunately, there are a number of constituents of mine in County Louth who still have family members who are missing and I really hope this is of benefit to them. I also welcome section 31 amending the Schedule to the Bail Act, which will add the offences of coercive control and forced marriage. This will be hugely beneficial and it has been an oversight.

Deputy Lawless made a point that is something I have reflected on in the past. There is merit whereby for serial offenders who are using this kind of revolving door and have had a number of convictions, perhaps we should make them pay back their free legal aid in some way. That is something we need to explore.

I also note the Minister’s comments in his opening statement in regard to the recommendations by the justice committee on the complete and unconditional ban on the use of counselling notes in criminal trials. This recommendation was not made lightly but was a result of consultation and listening to witnesses from various bodies, and most importantly from people – women – who have been victims of sexual violence. These were harrowing stories that no one should ever have to hear, much less have to experience. Their stories recounted how their trauma was compounded by their counselling notes being used against them. Their stories took us right back to the beginning to the actual offence itself, the rape or sexual violence, the detail of it and the number of years they have spent in some cases in counselling. Then there is the fact that not only were those counselling notes used against them, but that the time they lost in having to go over and over that detail from the very beginning retraumatised them, never mind the moment when they had to give evidence in cross-examination.

The presumption of innocence and a fair trial are the cornerstones of our legal system and pillars that I wholeheartedly believe in. They should be guarded and protected at all costs. However, I struggle to understand how the exclusion of counselling notes can threaten these principles. One of the victims set out the whole episode from the moment in which she took the stand and was cross-examined. The first question put to her by the defence barrister was whether she had ever taken the morning after pill. What a question to ask. One would wonder why he was asking this question. However, within her counselling notes, it had been noted that a week after the brutal, vicious rape that she had been subjected to, it dawned on her that she could actually be pregnant, so she went to the chemist and, for the first time in her life, purchased the morning after pill. That was the first question. Within her counselling notes, it was noted that the trauma of the incident had left her feeling so defiled and so dirty that the very thought of her children touching her left her in a position whereby for years she could not hug her own children. The second question by the defence barrister was “Do you hug your children?”

The Minister will be very familiar with the setting and he can imagine sitting in the chair answering questions. You are nervous, overwhelmed and are being traumatised and the jury is looking on at you. The jury is made up of men and women with everyday values. To be asked if you have ever taken the morning after pill and then whether you ever hug your children, when the answer is limited to “No, I can’t”, what is a jury to think? What in a reasonable person’s mind are they beginning to formulate in their head as an image of the alleged victim? The third question was “How are the intimate relations with your husband?” When it was noted that there were none, that was followed up by a comment to the effect that, nonetheless, she had sought the morning after pill. There is a rhythm or imagery there and a notion of what the victim could potentially be. A picture is being formed for a jury by a defence barrister. I would like to say that this story is an unusual story but it is not. It is a story that has been told again and again with some variations or changes but there is a common theme that runs through all the questioning. It is not legitimate questioning, in my view, but it is open to the defence barrister to put these questions in a way that they see fit. However, I do not believe it is fair.

Will the Minister illuminate me? Let me understand how dragging a woman’s reputation through the gutter - that is what we are talking about here - by using her own counselling notes and her innermost thoughts that probably had to be dragged out of her in the first place because of the trauma she was subjected to is fair. How can that be some sort of barrier or tantamount to blocking a fair trial? Can he help me understand how insinuating that a woman as a result of her trauma was somehow a bad mother because she could not hug her children because she felt dirty and, in her words, contaminated could be considered necessary to ensure a fair trial? The manner in which counselling notes are used in criminal trials is not fair in its essence. Often they are not even mentioned or relied on by the prosecution. Therefore, it could be argued that it is only a stick to further beat the alleged victim and is of no real evidential value. Indeed, I believe their very existence in a trial is a step backwards and is reminiscent of the days when we could question a woman’s clothing and behaviour to question whether she was asking for it or not, and offering a defence free of charge to an alleged perpetrator. A fair trial has to be fair to all. If the Attorney General believes that there may be issues of unconstitutionality, then he needs to set out the reasons he believes it is unconstitutional. I believe the Minister needs to work harder and we need to work harder, as does the Attorney General, to find a way to ensure our legal principles remain solid but that our women and men who are subjected to heinous, violent and frankly unforgiveable sexual and violent attacks are never further victimised or harassed by our own judicial system.

The presumption of disclosure as proposed by the Minister does not go far enough. Let me be clear - I have said it before and I will say it again – counselling notes have no place in the courtroom.

I thank all 13 Deputies for their contributions this afternoon. I also want to acknowledge the presence in the Gallery of survivors of sexual assault and rape and representatives of survivors and, indeed, representatives of those advocating for a disregard scheme. I hope the debate has been sensitive in terms of what they have had to listen to and I hope it has been in some way illuminating.

Generally when responding to contributions from Deputies, I like to go through them individually and deal with each Deputy’s contribution. However, I think it would be preferable if in my reply I dealt with the issues thematically as opposed to dealing with individual Deputies because there are a few issues that were raised by all of them. I hope that by my not referring to them individually, they are not offended by me not dealing with their individual speeches.

The first broad criticism or comment was that this is far too general a Bill. It is a miscellaneous provisions Bill but the suggestion is that the variety of matters contained within this Bill is far too broad and that I should not be bringing forward a Bill that contains such a wide breadth of issues.

From my perspective as a Minister and indeed from the perspective of trying to achieve legislative change for the purpose of benefiting individuals who need legislative change, a miscellaneous provisions Bill is of huge assistance to me. Others in this House if they become Ministers in the future will become aware that. The real benefit of a miscellaneous provisions Bill is that we know that we can expedite legislative change in a process that would otherwise take a considerable period of time. Deputies are correct when they say that in this Bill there are issues dealing with sexual offences, prisons, community service and other areas in respect of the civil legal system and evidence system. If I was to wait for a broad general Bill, whether it be a Bill on prisons or a Bill on community service, I would be waiting a considerable period of time in order to get that legislative change. The advantage of a miscellaneous provisions Bill is that it is like a train that is on the platform leaving shortly on its legislative journey. If I can get the issues onto the train, I know I will be able to effect legislative change quickly.

The alternative is just not to try to do that. I put considerable pressure on the Department in respect of it. Let us consider, for example, the issue in respect of the disregard changes. I apologise that the provisions are not before Members today but they will be on Committee Stage. If I was to wait for separate legislation to come along and to be prepared in respect of disregard provisions for those who are convicted of historical same-sex offences, I would be waiting a considerable period of time and, being frank, it would take years for it to be effected, whereas by putting pressure on people to get it into the miscellaneous provisions Bill, I can get it done on a much speedier basis. I want to make that general point on the benefit of a miscellaneous provisions Bill.

The predominant issue discussed here is what I am proposing in respect of the counselling notes. I have listened very carefully to what colleagues had to say and, of course, I have read the recommendations of the justice committee after its pre-legislative scrutiny. I will just say something that I think we all will agree on. People may find it difficult to identify that. I think we all agree that the current situation that operates as a result of the Criminal Evidence Act is unacceptable and needs to be changed. At present something is happening that was never the legislative intention of this House. What is happening is that counselling notes are being provided virtually on an ad hoc basis to the defence in criminal proceedings. That was never the intention of this House when the legislation was changed back in 2017. It is my responsibility to ensure that that changes and changes quickly.

I was a Member of the Oireachtas back in 2017, as I believe Deputy Coppinger was as well. The intention of the Oireachtas at that stage was that the law would be changed so that the only type of material that would be provided to an accused in a sexual assault or rape trial would be material evidence which contained evidence that was exculpatory that was directly relevant to the individual concerned who was accused of the offence. The only basis for it was that it was assumed there may be information or evidence within a counselling note that is relevant to the innocence of the accused. That was the only reason this was introduced.

Regrettably now what is happening is that counselling notes are being handed out on an ad hoc basis; that needs to change. Part of the reason they are being given out on an ad hoc basis is that the process that had been put in place by the Oireachtas back in 2017 where there would be a court hearing is now being waived. It is understandably being waived because victims want to get their trials on quickly. They know that if there is going to be a court hearing in respect of counselling notes, that will delay the process. Regrettably there may be delays as a result of the process I am proposing but it is an essential change in order to ensure that the system that exists at present does not continue.

The call from the justice committee and from many Deputies here this afternoon is for the introduction of a ban on counselling notes. I cannot do that. I have to be honest with the people in the Gallery and with the public. I want Deputies to take into consideration what would happen if I did that. If I put in a legislative provision that it should be impermissible to gain disclosure of counselling notes and defined counselling notes in a criminal prosecution, inevitably a person, who is accused of a criminal offence and who said that they had reason to believe there was material evidence within counselling notes, would bring a challenge to that legislation. They would say that legislation has been introduced by the Oireachtas which has made inaccessible to disclosure a category of evidence that has never previously been inaccessible. They would say that there was material within that category of evidence that if it was disclosed to a jury would be exculpatory of the accused. Sometimes we hear people saying it might be constitutional or it may be unconstitutional. I regret to say that if we were to introduce a legislative provision which said there is a category of evidence that can never ever be used in a criminal trial, I think it is fairly clear the courts would say that is unconstitutional. There is nothing else where we say, "You can't have any access to that".

Deputy Coppinger referred to the issue of privilege. On Committee Stage, I will seek to try to change the presumption so that there is a presumption for non-disclosure. In effect, I will give a stronger protection to counselling notes to ensure that it should be the exception that they be disclosed and they would only be disclosed if having looked at the counselling notes, a judge determines there is information in those that would be of real benefit to an accused as it could undermine the narrative of what has been said against him and it would be exculpatory for the purpose of the trial. That is the only way that this should ever have been used. I listened very carefully to what Deputy Butterly had to say in respect of a trial that had been spoken about earlier on. That should never have been brought in. That is not what the statutory provision that we introduced was introduced for.

I ask colleagues to be considerate in terms of what we are trying to do. I will bring in further amendments on Committee Stage. I have to be honest with people and I do not want to mislead people. The Oireachtas cannot ban counselling notes without putting in place a real risk that a subsequent trial involving a complainant and a survivor or victim before the courts would be undermined because a successful legal challenge would be brought against it.

Another issue raised was in respect of pepper spray. Pepper spray is for the purpose of protecting workers, for the protection of prison officers. I believe it will be seldom used.

Community service orders should be introduced. We need to give more options to the Judiciary in respect of penalties that can be imposed upon those convicted of criminal offences. At present we do not. Actually, the fault lies with us in the Oireachtas. Every time we create a new offence, we simply state a fine for a summary conviction, or a term of imprisonment or fine if convicted on indictment. We are trying to give a broader range of options to the Judiciary so judges can take that into account when it comes to imposing a penalty on the individual.

On the Committee Stage amendments, I would have preferred if I had been able to come here with the whole Bill together as opposed to saying some further provisions will be coming on Committee Stage. As Deputy Lahart said, I am conscious I am bringing forward these proposals because behind each individual proposal are people. Behind the counselling notes proposal, there are survivors of sexual abuse and there are victims elsewhere whom I am trying to help.

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until next week's weekly division time.

I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 39 and the name of the Member in each case:

Deputy Peter Roche - To discuss access the supports for persons with an end-of-life medical card.

Deputy Jen Cummins - To discuss core funding for Ballyfermot youth service.

Deputy Michael Cahill - To discuss allowing allow for modular housing and low-cost sites.

Deputy Barry Heneghan - To discuss the NTA proposed merger of the 130 Dublin Bus with the 80 bus.

Deputy Erin McGreehan - To discuss the delivery of level 2 general palliative care services in County Louth.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú - To discuss the Organised Crime Bureau's statement about the response to drug debt intimidation and violence.

Deputy Barry Ward - To discuss the shortfall of SEN primary school places in Shankill, County Dublin.

Deputy Conor D. McGuinness - To discuss commercial rates bills for Waterford childcare providers participating in the ECCE scheme.

Deputy Naoise Ó Muirí - To discuss ongoing issues with the 15 bus in north Dublin.

Deputy Maurice Quinlivan - To discuss the ongoing use and misuse of e-scooter vehicles in urban areas.

Deputy James Geoghegan - To discuss Dublin hosting the World Economic Forum.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly - To discuss prepay customers facing involuntarily disconnection over winter.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore - To discuss special education places in Wicklow.

Deputy Louis O'Hara - To discuss the dangerous condition of a derelict hotel (details supplied) in County Galway.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne - To discuss actions taken by Government in relation to ongoing human rights abuses by the Chinese Communist Party against the Uyghurs.

The matters raised by Deputies Barry Heneghan, Jennifer Whitmore, Louis O'Hara and James Geoghegan have been selected for discussion.

I move:

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to introduce the River Boyne Task Force Bill to the House. The Bill seeks to establish a committee of the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly to serve as a River Boyne task force with the function of proposing and promoting policies and priorities for the protection and enhancement of the environment of the River Boyne and of its natural habitats and wildlife. While they are not in a position to be here I acknowledge the support of colleagues like Deputies Joanna Byrne and Ó Murchú who unfortunately cannot be here. Other local colleagues have expressed an interest in speaking on the Bill but may not be able to make it this evening for a variety of reasons, but that does not mean they are not committed to the principles of this particular Bill. I say that on the basis that this is the kind of initiative that should generate cross-party collaboration and support. We are all interested in the future of our river catchment areas and in improving the management and development of our environment.

Rising in County Kildare, the River Boyne flows through the counties of Offaly, Meath and my home county of Louth. It is arguably the most historically significant river in the country as it winds its way through the landscape of Irish history and prehistory back as far as the first settlers in Ireland. The River Boyne is under serious pressure, not least in recent times when there were plans by a meat processing firm to discharge treated waste into a river where water quality is already threatened and biodiversity is at risk. That plan was thwarted by moves made by a public campaign and an appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

The Bill, to give it its context, was inspired by my colleague and former County Meath councillor, Elaine McGinty, who is with us in the Gallery, along with representatives from local environmental groups who have dedicated themselves to the protection of the river. The Bill also has the support of my colleague, the mayor of Drogheda Councillor Michelle Hall and my colleague, Councillor Pio Smith. The Bill also takes its inspiration from my late friend and Louth Labour Party colleague James Lambe, a young man who passed away a short number of years ago. He was somebody who cared deeply about his community and about the river that all of us in Drogheda and in Louth and Meath cherish. This is part of his legacy. It was also inspired by the good work of groups like Save The Boyne and the Boyne Rivers Trust and representatives of those are with us as well. Much of the information I will put on the record in this debate and the data I will rely on comes from their valuable work on the ground and the research they have undertaken in recent years.

As I have said, the Bill seeks to establish a committee of the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly to serve as a River Boyne task force with the function of proposing and promoting policies and priorities for the protection and enhancement of the environment of the River Boyne and of its natural habitats and wildlife. Should the Bill be enacted, the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly will establish a special committee to be known as the River Boyne task force. The task force will be made up members from each of the four councils in Kildare, Louth, Meath and Offaly and appointed members who have an interest or expertise in the protection and sustainable development of the river. The functions of the task force will be to propose and promote policies and priorities for the protection and enhancement of the environment of the Boyne catchment and of its wildlife and natural habitats. It will co-ordinate, promote and support strategic planning and sustainable development around the Boyne catchment and make recommendations to regulate and control pollution in and around the catchment. It will also set out a vision for the Boyne catchment as a public amenity for current and future generations and ensure the river’s environmental sustainability, conserving its habitats and wildlife and monitoring the impact of climate change on the river. It will seek to identify the areas in and around the Boyne catchment where detailed proposals and plans for renewal, preservation, conservation, restoration and development or redevelopment would be appropriate and include proposals relating to public access and public amenities including public transport and pedestrian access to the Boyne catchment and its environs.

Our river belongs to all of us. For the purpose of this Bill the Boyne catchment is defined as:

the River Boyne from its source at Trinity Well in the townland of Demesne and County of Kildare to an imaginary line drawn from The Haven in the townland of Baltray and County of Louth to Mornington Point in the townland of Mornington and County of Meath ...

It also includes all tributary rivers and streams and connected lakes and ponds and includes the two canals, namely, the Lower and Upper Boyne Navigations. Additional tasks the task force would take on include to arrange training, research or testing activities in relation to any of its functions, to promote public interest in, respect for, access to and enjoyment of the Boyne catchment and to co-ordinate the activities of public bodies and other organisations and persons in connection with the protection and enhancement of the environment of the Boyne catchment. In performing its functions the task force must act in a manner that achieves and promotes compliance with the requirements of both the habitats directive and the birds directive. The Bill envisages the task force would consult persons and organisations who are, or are representatives of, users of the Boyne catchment or the occupiers of lands in its neighbourhood. It must establish and maintain appropriate links with persons and organisations concerned with the management of the Boyne or any part of it with the aim of improved co-ordination in the formulation and execution of policies. These are the technical elements of the main provisions of this Bill and what it seeks to achieve.

This Bill can be something of a template or framework for the better management of all our precious river systems across the country. We know our water systems are under serious pressure and serious threat. One of the main problems we have with the management of our precious river systems is the severe lack of co-ordination on their management and protection. When a variety of bodies are responsible, nobody is responsible and therein lies the risk. The River Boyne is of enormous historical and cultural importance. It passes through the ancient towns and landscapes of Trim, Trim Castle, the Hill of Tara, Navan, the Hill of Slane and the medieval town of Drogheda, which is my hometown. The Boyne is also home to one of the world’s most important prehistoric landscapes, namely, the UNESCO world heritage site megalithic monuments of Brú na Bóinne. The importance of the Boyne Valley and its many sites that have yet to be studied archaeologically is writ large in the commitment made, after many years of campaigning by me and others, for the State to buy Dowth Hall and the demesne around it. That was something I campaigned on for many years and that was a really important commitment by the previous Government. It was a recognition of the importance of that area and the need to protect the environment and have it be enjoyed by future generations. One of the key reasons the State acquired that estate was the rather unique biodiversity that was evident at those sites. The sites on the estate have been hardly touched by modern agricultural methods. It is quite a perfect site and something to be seen and enjoyed. We look forward to learning more over the next period about the Department’s plans for that site. The course of the river charts not only a line on a map but a course through the history of this island.

Apart from its important cultural heritage, it is also internationally recognised for its environmental value. The importance of the river is recognised at a European level by its designation as a special area of conservation under the habitats directive and as an SPA under the birds directive. The catchment supports five strictly protected species and habitats, including otters, Atlantic salmon, river lamprey, alluvial woodlands and alkaline fens. Despite these layers of protections that have been transposed into Irish law, the Boyne has been, quite frankly, under attack, and while local environmental groups have done some wonderful work in protecting the river and raising awareness of the threats to it, this work needs to be taken more seriously by putting more considered statutory frameworks in place for the protection of our ancient river. We need a different and improved approach. We need better collaboration and co-ordination and for all that to be placed on a statutory footing. The river has the capacity to deal with a certain amount of human-generated pollutants but it is clear it is reaching its limits in that regard and has indeed exceeded them. The river has been cleaning up our mess for far too long. Under the water framework directive Ireland has agreed to ensure all its waters will be of high or good ecological status by 2027 but that is going to be practically impossible. As things stand Ireland is falling well short of this target.

The Boyne catchment is no exception with many water bodies failing to achieve an adequate ecological status in recent years and I am putting that diplomatically. Things are getting worse, not better. The river is under attack from a variety of sources, including domestic wastewater, peat, urban wastewater, urban run-off industry, mines and quarries, to name a few. The elephant in the room is the objective fact that certain agricultural processes are endangering the health of our river too. I am extremely concerned about the decision by the State to seek and secure another exemption to the nitrates directive. I will return to that in my response to the Minister's comments on the Bill later.

Some welcome steps are being taken. Teagasc, for example, has developed an action plan for better farming for water in the Boyne catchment area, which it is hoped will make farmers better neighbours of our water courses and better custodians of the environment. I hope that plan will deliver positive results but quite frankly I am sceptical and history shows why I should be.

A major flashpoint in threats to the river came in 2021, when Dawn Meats sought planning permission from Meath County Council to construct a 7.2 km pipeline from its Slane beef abattoir to discharge treated wastewater into the River Boyne. The depth of feeling among locals living along the river became evident when hundreds of objections were submitted in opposition to the plans, a campaign which my colleague in Meath East, Deputy O'Rourke, who is with us this evening and will contribute on the Bill, was active in supporting. Despite those objections, in April 2022 Meath County Council granted permission for the proposal but the decision was immediately appealed to An Bord Pleanála by several parties. An Bord Pleanála saw sense. It saw the wisdom in the case made against the proposal by the Save the Boyne group and others and the appeal was won. When that welcome decision was made, the Save the Boyne group made a statement I wholly endorse, which the Bill seeks to underpin. The group said the Boyne had significant meaning to all the people who share its shores and waterways, from canoes to anglers, photographers and those simply strolling along its banks. In other words, the river belongs to all of us. The group said the river has a shared history and meaning for all those who recognise its enormous value.

The latest water quality report from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, measured water quality over a five-year period from 2019 to 2024 and was published in 2025. When measured against the previous five-year report for 2016 to 2021, this report showed the risk the River Boyne network is under. Between 2019 and 2024, 52% of our river water bodies were in unsatisfactory ecological status. This reflects a 2% decline in 79 water bodies since the 2016 to 2021 report.

The river supports a population of approximately 200,000 people. It drains an area of almost 2,700 sq km, with Drogheda as its greatest urban centre. I hope in the course of this and my later contribution, we will have shown the river's importance and the threats it faces now and in the future. I am firmly of the belief that the river's ongoing preservation, management and protection needs to be put on a firmer footing. We need to take a keener legislative interest in how we do that. The establishment of a task force on a statutory basis with the protection of the river as its focus will be a vital tool in defending the river and protecting this vital amenity for future generations. I will not overstate the importance of this intervention or innovation but it can make a contribution. This is why I am proposing this Bill and I urge everyone in the House to support its passage. I commend the Bill to the House.

I am taking this debate on behalf of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Browne.

I acknowledge the Bill brought forward by Deputy Nash. The principal purpose of the Bill, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum, is to establish a new body, within the current local and regional government framework with specific responsibilities for the River Boyne and its catchment area. However, after careful consideration, the Government has decided it will oppose this Bill.

Regarding the public interest, the Bill, if enacted, would be counterproductive to the work already being undertaken or planned for the River Boyne and its catchment. It would divert existing resources and personnel from addressing other water quality and local government issues in the Boyne catchment and would add an additional layer of administration and bureaucracy for the bodies and agencies that currently operate in the catchment. While I welcome and acknowledge the commitment and ambition to protect the River Boyne, the Government has already ensured mechanisms are in place that will accomplish much of what is proposed under the proposed Bill.

Since this Bill was put on the Order Paper, a new and revised river basin management plan, the Water Action Plan 2024, has been launched and is currently being implemented through a range of public authorities overseen by the programme delivery office in the Department. The water action plan is the principal means through which we are addressing our water quality. Building on the work of previous cycles, and by incorporating the integrated catchment management approach, the plan sets out the necessary environmental objectives and lays out the roadmap through which we will work to restore and protect our water bodies at a national level up to 2027. The water action plan has an increased level of ambition, offers multiple benefits for nature and biodiversity and offers role clarity and collaborative implementation for the many implementing bodies at national, regional and catchment level that play a vital role in its delivery.

Targeting the right measure in the right place is the main approach adopted under the plan, and the results of the recent EPA water quality report show that this approach is working in targeted areas and in particular in the priority areas for action that have been selected under the plan for targeted measures. Several priority areas for action are being administered by the local authority waters programme, LAWPRO, and the relevant local authorities with the aim of restoring water quality in the Boyne catchment. The work being undertaken by LAWPRO in the Boyne catchment alone is focused on 33 water bodies across five priority areas for action. It involves LAWPRO carrying out local catchment assessments to identify pressures on water quality and working with implementing bodies to resolve these issues.

Catchment management work plans are a new initiative under the water action plan that have being developed and implemented in conjunction with LAWPRO, and are being developed for each of the 46 catchments. The purpose of the catchment management work plans will be to set out the actions identified by implementing bodies required for water bodies and to share information on catchment characteristics, current water quality issues and pressures, thereby aiding water quality at a catchment level. In addition to the national river basin management plan, local authorities are required to prepare their own local authority water action plans. LAWPRO is working with the EPA and the programme delivery office in the Department to produce a template for all local authorities from which they will develop a dedicated local plan for water quality. The template is due to be launched in 2026, will include specific actions assigned to each local authority for the protection and restoration of water quality and will specify reporting requirements and data flows from which to accurately report on the progress with their implementation.

The Department recently launched the sixth nitrates programme, with the accompanying good agricultural regulations having come into effect on 1 January this year. In recent years, the Department established the national agricultural inspection programme, which funds an additional 57 local authority inspectors with an aim of carrying out inspections of 4,500 farms per annum. These inspections are targeted where, using EPA information, there is a risk of impact on water quality. Up to three inspectors have been employed in Meath. Kildare has two sanctioned inspectors in addition to extra staff working on the programme, while Louth has one inspector and Offaly has two inspectors.

In March 2024, the farming for water European innovation partnership, EIP, project was launched. This initiative is co-funded by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and is managed by LAWPRO in collaboration with other agencies. It is investing funding of €60 million over five years. The project aims to support farmers to improve water quality by promoting the adoption of innovative best practice in nutrient management and the application of nature-based solutions to reduce losses of phosphorous, nitrogen, sediment and pesticides from agricultural lands to water bodies.

In terms of the physical health of natural water bodies, a new national hydromorphology programme has been established with the long-term vision of mitigating the negative impact of past construction on rivers to restore their flow, form and function. Inland Fisheries Ireland, with co-funding from the Department, has launched the national barrier mitigation programme, which will work to restore the natural flow of waterways through the removal of legacy barriers and weirs.

The Bill proposes carrying out works under the functions of the task force that may involve the dredging, straightening, deepening or widening of waterways to improve navigation of the Boyne catchment. Such activities could impact the natural flow of the Boyne catchment’s waterways and have unintended consequences that could negatively impact the hydromorphological flow and impede the work that is being undertaken by the national barrier mitigation programme. In all, under the Department’s water quality capital programme, €41.5 million has been committed in 2026 to projects such as the farming for water EIP project, the national barrier mitigation programme and numerous other beneficial projects.

Another aspect that must be examined is the proposal in the Bill to remove the functions assigned under the 2014 European Union (Water Policy) Regulations to both the water advisory committee and local authorities. The role of the water policy advisory committee within the Boyne catchment is an important element as it works at the highest level in the governance structures working to improve our water quality. The functions of the committee include advising on policy in relation to the preparation of river basin management plans, the preparation of a programme of measures to achieve environmental objectives and promoting appropriate activities necessary to support achieving the objectives of the water framework directive.

The water policy advisory committee is also supported by other important bodies such as the national co-ordination and management committee, which is chaired by the Department and includes the local authority chairs of the regional management committees, LAWPRO and the EPA, and works as the programme management committee for the water action plan. The regional management committees and regional operational committees were established as forums where local authorities, agencies and other implementing bodies under the water action plan could highlight and overcome operational challenges at a regional and local level, and if required, raise issues and barriers to water framework directive implementation with the high-level governance structures for resolution. These governance structures work towards addressing the impacts on our water quality at a national, local and cross-sectoral level and have brought a new strategic and leadership focus on addressing the blockages towards effective implementation and resolution of the issues.

The proposed Bill also specifies the functions assigned by or under the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 to local authorities shall, in relation to the Boyne catchment, be performed on behalf of the relevant local authorities by the task force. The regulations also place increased obligations on local authorities by assigning responsibility to them for regional co-ordination through LAWPRO as the local authority shared service, public participation and support to the Minister and the EPA in the development and implementation of water quality measures. Funded by the Department, LAWPRO co-ordinates efforts among local authorities to achieve good or high water quality in our water bodies. The ongoing work of LAWPRO will be key in the current third cycle, and in particular the catchment work it is prioritising in 343 of the priority areas for action that are outlined in the water action plan.

I believe the proposed Bill would be unintentionally counterproductive to the significant work being carried out at a national, regional and local level, led by local authorities. From a local government perspective, the Bill proposes a number of provisions that appear to overlap with provisions in existing legislation. Regional assemblies already have a range of co-ordinating functions under legislation, including in relation to research and gathering information. Regional assemblies may also appoint their own committees.

Furthermore, it is not clear what interaction is envisaged between the existing statutory strategic planning committees of the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly and the proposed task force, which would have functions in relation to planning. Section 51 of the Local Government Act 2001 empowers local authorities to establish, by resolution of the elected members, one or more committees "to consider matters connected with the functions of the authority". Section 52 of the Act provides that if two or more local authorities wish to establish a joint committee or committees, they may do so.

The proposals in the Bill would therefore appear to remove discretion and choice in the establishment of a particular committee from the regional assembly and possibly from the relevant local authorities as well. The Bill proposes to remove functions from local authorities and to transfer them to the task force. It is not clear why the proposed task force is considered to be better placed to perform these functions than the local authorities already performing them. It is also not clear how the task force’s decisions would be implemented, nor what associated resourcing would be needed to support the body or whether this would be more cost-effective than existing arrangements.

On behalf of the Minister, Deputy Browne, I reiterate that significant progress is being made and the funding, projects and initiatives I have outlined show this Government is committed to addressing problems with water quality at catchment level. These will benefit not only the Boyne catchment and surrounding areas but all of our nation’s rivers, lakes and waterways.

Water quality measures are being implemented in the Boyne catchment, and the Bill would add an additional layer of supervision for these measures with limited, if any, practical benefit. The loss of the contribution of established governance structures such as the water policy advisory committee and LAWPRO to the work being undertaken in the Boyne catchment cannot be underestimated and may have the unintended consequence of isolating the catchment from water quality developments being made at the national level. The water action plan governance structures are in place to deal with the water functions outlined in the Bill, and the co-ordination and engagement is already ongoing with the development of both the Boyne catchment community fora and catchment management work plan, which will form the foundation for water quality action and improvements going forward.

As stated, after careful consideration, the Government has decided it will oppose this Bill as it would be counterproductive to the significant work already being undertaken in the River Boyne, given that many of the proposed elements of the Bill are already in place. The Bill would add an additional layer of administration for local authorities and the agencies and bodies that operate in the Boyne catchment. The Minister, Deputy Browne, would like to encourage those who have contributed to the proposed Bill to continue to engage fully with the structures and processes already put in place to manage and protect catchments such as the Boyne. As mentioned, I am taking this debate on his behalf and I look forward to hearing the contributions to the debate.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the River Boyne Task Force Bill. I thank Deputy Nash and the Labour Party for bringing it forward. I am sorry I did not speak after Deputy Nash, because I was enthusiastic at that stage. I am now coming after the Minister of State and he has put us on a downer.

I am giving you a lot more to work with.

It is an important piece of legislation and it deals with one of our greatest national and natural resources, the River Boyne. It relates to the Save the Boyne campaign and the effort to reject the proposal from Dawn Meats to emit waste into the Boyne. That campaign was successful and I was happy, along with Sinn Féin colleagues, to support that effort and to play our part. However, the real credit, as anyone who was a part of it will know, goes to the activists and volunteers in the community, in the Save the Boyne campaign and elsewhere. I know there are others but people will not mind me singling out for special mention Mog Downey and Tommy Martin of the Save the Boyne campaign for their efforts, as well as the local angling clubs and the local community. This was quite unusual. All of us as public representatives deal with controversial planning. I have a number of such cases ongoing at the minute throughout the Meath East constituency, but very rarely are they like this. This was an organic response from the community, but wider than that, in response to the proposal because of the want to protect the environment and the River Boyne, and in recognition of the incredible importance, on so many levels, of the Boyne, as well as an appreciation of it.

From a political perspective, not to single anyone out, there was the involvement of the Labour Party, the Social Democrats, the Green Party, Sinn Féin, some Independents and the then Councillor Gillian Toole, a party colleague of the Minister of State. I have to say, I hope she does not oppose this proposal next Wednesday because it is a very positive one. There was also the former Councillor McGinty, who is joining us in the Gallery, and I will make special mention of Slane-based local area representative Peter Whelan, who really put his shoulder behind the wheel and put a big effort in. He deserves a lot of credit and maith sibh ar fad. The campaign was organic; it was wonderful and it continues. Hopefully, it can be a central part of any river task force.

The proposal being made in this Bill is not merely an administrative adjustment but a long overdue commitment to one of Ireland's most historic and ecologically vital landscapes. For too long the stewardship of the Boyne catchment has been fragmented, its potential under-realised and its pressures inadequately addressed. This Bill provides a coherent and integrated response that the river and our communities need.

I heard what the Minister of State said earlier but I was not joking. There is an opportunity in this to harness what I have just mentioned. The Minister of State said there are bureaucratic and administrative forums already established and yet to be established but that does not change matters in my experience. The Government is going to oppose the Bill which is regrettable and a great pity. I urge the Minister of State and the Minister to look at what is positive in this Bill as well as at what the Government itself is proposing and try to marry the two. They should try to take the best of both. The departmental and official response has no life but there is an opportunity here with this Bill.

From a Meath perspective, we are so proud of and connected to the Boyne, Brú na Bóinne, Oldbridge, the Battle of the Boyne site, Bective Abbey, Knowth and Dowth, Trim Castle and so on. There is so much there because it is the nature of rivers that life grows up around them. When I think of the development and the potential of it, as well as the need to protect it, there are so many cross-cutting responsibilities. We can take as an example the Boyne greenway and navigation restoration project. The TII has responsibility for it but there are so many agencies involved in that project that it has almost run aground and may run forever and ever. Meath County Council, Louth County Council and the Heritage Council are all involved but if we had a co-ordinating body like a River Boyne task force, it could just pull all of that together. It makes absolute sense to me.

At the heart of Deputy Nash's Bill is the recognition that the Boyne is a single living entity. Its health from source to sea dictates the environmental, economic and social well-being of our entire region. The principle of the task force is that it mirrors that interconnectedness. It combines the roles of environmental guardian, strategic planner and community champion. It will protect habitats and wildlife, proposing policies that embed environmental sustainability and climate resilience into the very fabric of our planning. It will co-ordinate sustainable development, ensuring that progress does not come at the expense of our natural heritage. This dual mandate is important and moves us beyond the false choice between conservation and progress towards a model where they are mutually reinforcing. The task force's power to make concrete recommendations on pollution control and to design vital infrastructure works, from flood defences to public access points, shifts our approach from reactive to proactive. It provides a single accountable engine for improvement. Furthermore, by centralising the water policy functions currently dispersed across various committees and local authorities, it will replace complexity and overlap with clarity and purpose. This will streamline decision making and ensure the Boyne receives the specialised, focused attention it deserves.

This proposal is about more than ecology and infrastructure. It is also about people. The functions to promote public interest, access and enjoyment speak to a profound understanding of the river as a public amenity. The Boyne is not just a waterway; it is our national heritage, a source of recreation, wellness and inspiration. By mandating consultation with users, landowners and local organisations, the task force ensures its work is rooted in the lived experience of those who know and love the river best. It fosters a spirit of shared custodianship. Some may question the need for another body, as the Minister of State did, but I would argue that this is not an addition to bureaucracy but a cure for bureaucratic paralysis. The Boyne catchment crosses multiple local authority boundaries. Its challenges, be they water quality, biodiversity loss, flooding or managing tourism, do not respect lines on a map. A lone authority cannot solve them and what has been missing is precisely this, a co-ordinating force with a strategic vision and the authority to drive integrated action.

In mandating compliance with both the birds directive and the habitats directive, the Bill firmly anchors our national treasure within its European environmental commitments. It signals that our protection of the Boyne will be diligent, science-led and legally robust. The Bill presents us with a straight choice. We can continue with a piecemeal approach, allowing the pressures on the Boyne to mount, or we can embrace this co-ordinated strategy. The River Boyne task force offers a framework to heal its waters, protect its wildlife, unlock its sustainable potential and guarantee its enjoyment for many generations to come. I urge all Members to support the Bill and to take this decisive step forward towards a thriving future for the River Boyne and all who will depend on it.

As I said earlier, we are experienced enough in relation to this. I ask the Government to please take on board what I said earlier. There is an opportunity here. The Government's position is clear. I would like it to withdraw its objections but, failing that, let us find a way forward to harness that tremendous potential and combine what is best in this Bill with what the Government and the Department have proposed. This is an incredibly important issue. The work is there to be done. There is a will and an interest and we should harness that. If we do not do so, it will be a shame on all of us. From an Opposition perspective, we are saying "Here it is; let's go and do it".

I am dealing with this on behalf of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Browne. I thank Deputy Nash for introducing this Labour Party Bill. I also thank him and Deputy O'Rourke for their contributions to the debate this evening. While the Minister welcomes the genuine intentions of the Bill in attempting to address issues in the Boyne catchment, this Government is already implementing a comprehensive set of measures, policies and administrative structures that are contributing to addressing such issues, not just within the Boyne catchment but at a national level.

Water is one of the most important natural resources. In so many ways it is central to our economy and way of life. It is essential for our tillage and livestock which ensures stable and high-quality food production. It also sustains our biodiversity and nature through unpolluted and healthy ecosystems, while clean and hygienic drinking water supplies ensure the health of our citizens. Managed effectively, water plays a key role in strengthening the resilience of our social, economic and environmental systems.

The lesson that can be taken away from the most recent EPA report is that while we still need to do more to address problems of water quality, Ireland is ahead of many other European member states with regard to water quality. This Government is taking action to address the impacts on our water quality. The EPA water quality report highlighted several areas for improvement, including the necessity of improved data sharing and integration between the implementing bodies, water quality programmes and State agencies. The Bill as proposed would do the opposite by including an additional layer of administration and would isolate the catchment from the effective structures that are already in place.

I spoke briefly earlier about some of the work that is being undertaken to help to address negative impacts on water in the Boyne catchment. By virtue of measures and initiatives currently in place through the 2024 water action plan, we are already undertaking many of the proposals outlined in the Bill to tackle the impacts on water quality. A dedicated programme delivery office was established in early 2025 with responsibility for co-ordinating the work of relevant national and local structures to drive the delivery of the plan and for reporting on progress with the implementation of the measures that will address the pressures on water quality. In addition, the programme delivery office is overseeing the development of catchment management plans through the local authorities water programme, LAWPRO. These work plans will outline the issues to be addressed and the roles and responsibilities of implementing bodies such as local authorities.

The Boyne catchment has been selected as one of the pilot projects in which the new work plans are being developed and tested. Community stakeholders will also play a pivotal role in helping to address our water quality, particularly through the catchment community forums that are being introduced under the water action plan. These community forums are currently running as pilot projects in five catchments throughout the country, including the Boyne catchment.

The Boyne catchment community forums will undertake many important tasks, including contributing to the development of the catchment management work plan for the catchment. The catchment community forums will ensure that local communities have a say regarding water quality in their catchments. I strongly encourage local community stakeholders to fully participate in this opportunity to help shape the future of their water environment.

In addition, the Government is providing the necessary funding to upgrade our water infrastructure. Under the updated national development plan, Uisce Éireann will invest €11.7 billion up to 2030 to support the delivery of key strategic projects to deliver the additional water services capacity required for the new housing targets while prioritising public health and safeguarding the environment.

The Government has already commenced future planning for the water quality sector that will be implemented into the next decade. Officials from my Department have begun the process of developing Ireland's fourth water basin management plan - the water action plan 2028 to 2033.

With the indulgence of An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, if he allows me to continue, I will take an extra minute or two.

Is that okay, Deputy?

Yes.

The third water action plan has given us a solid blueprint for how we can build and evolve our ambition for the next cycle.

The next water action plan will build upon the water I have outlined here today. We will again look to deliver on integrated multiple policy objectives for water, biodiversity and climate wherever possible. This integrated approach will deliver gains for our water quality and ensure that we can deliver the right measures in the right places.

Public consultation on significant water management issues for the fourth water framework directive cycle was launched in December last. This public consultation is intended to help identify the issues that the fourth water action plan will seek to address and is an important opportunity for the public to express their views on what our priorities should be.

As I highlighted, the Bill would impact the functions of local authorities and appears to overlap with provisions already in place through existing legislation without any clarity on how these proposals would bring added benefit to the Boyne catchment. I assure the public that the Government is working to address the issues highlighted here today and is fully committed to protecting water quality nationwide. I note the points that both Deputies have raised and they are issues the Department and Government will take on board, but we are opposing the Bill on the basis that we believe it could be counterproductive to what is an overall national policy, which will impact on the Boyne as well.

We have made very good progress in the water sector in the last number of years. Additional funding has been provided to Uisce Éireann, governance has been strengthened, programmes have been put in place and measures have been implemented that will be targeted locally to deliver positive environment outcomes.

After detailed and careful consideration, the Government has decided to oppose this Bill, as it would be counterproductive to the work that has already been undertaken in the River Boyne, as many of the proposals in the Bill are already in place. However, we take on board the points that have been raised by the Deputies. The Minister, Deputy Browne, encourages those who have contributed to the Bill to continue to engage fully with the structures and processes already put in place to manage and protect catchments, such as the Boyne.

I thank the Minister of State for his response even though it is not a response that I would agree with. It is disappointing that the Government has decided not to send the Bill for further examination on Committee Stage or delay its next reading, but to actively oppose it. I do not think that sends out the right the signal. It is very disappointing and in some ways upends a practice that has been in place for some time. I believe the arguments that the Bill makes merit and warrant further consideration.

The Minister of State knows that I have the height of professional and personal respect and time for him. We have worked together over many years but, if he will excuse the pun, for a debate about water and a river, it has been a very dry debate. With respect to his officials who crafted the response, to me it appears to be an indefensible defence of a broken system. I believe the systems and frameworks that we have in place for managing our environment, protecting our rivers and bringing them up to the kinds of standard that citizens expect in order to protect our natural habitats, our biodiversity and our drinking water are far from where they should be.

I note that the Minister of State referenced baseline comparators with other European states. We are really not comparing like with like. There are lots of European water systems under much more pressure than Irish water systems, but they are in heavily industrialised areas and in states that have only in relatively recent times joined the European Union and been subject to the water framework directive and so on.

We have infringements on the water framework directive the length of our arm. We do not take the water framework directive seriously at all. I would argue that rather than the Bill's measures being counterproductive, their intention was to introduce greater collaboration and co-ordination between systems that in my view are already failing rivers like the River Boyne. We have Uisce Éireann. We have the EPA. We have the local authorities. We have port companies. We have Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, and a range of different bodies. We have had LAWPRO for a number of years, an organisation that has great potential to raise public awareness of our water bodies and what needs to be done to protect them. However, the system that is in place at the moment just does not work and the evidence of that is there from disimproved water quality.

I read the data from the EPA and I do not want to single out one sector over another, but there is an elephant in the room. We know that the nitrates directive exemption has been extended again. Ireland was straining to make those arguments. In the context of the Boyne, agriculture was the top significant pressure impacting on the river - this is directly from the EPA - at 66% of the 87% at-risk water bodies within the Boyne catchment area and we are extending the nitrates directive again.

I do not want to be gratuitously having a pop at any one sector over another, but it is probably time we had adult, grown-up debates in our national Parliament and stop pretending that we do not have issues that are going to cause us real problems, not just in the future, but are causing us real problems today. Quite frankly, no one here seems to have the balls - the cojones - to understand and accept that. Responsible politicians who show leadership have responsible, mature and informed conversations with the people they represent.

Regarding many of the measures and plans put in place now by the agencies to better manage our water ways, we are doing those with one hand tied behind our back in some ways because if we do not improve how we deal with agricultural run-off and so on, then the problems are waterways are going to experience will be insurmountable and we may as well right off some of our rivers. For what? I am the first person in this Chamber to defend somebody's right to make a livelihood. I am the first person to understand the importance of economic sectors to our country, but we need a responsible discussion. We just seem incapable of having responsible discussions in this Chamber. That is a poor reflection on the Government and a poor reflection on us as public representatives. For example, the least the nitrates directive extension merited was an informed debate and we did not have that.

We do not seem to have those debates in this Chamber any more. There are issues in this regard.

Interestingly, the Minister of State indicated that since the Bill was published and introduced on First Stage in 2023, there have been some innovations. I hope I am not overstating matters or making excessive claims but we can see some of the measures proposed in the Bill mimicked in some ways in the community forum that was established. I do not know whether it is a coincidence, but one of the first community forums established was in the Boyne catchment area. I am happy to take credit for that. If that brings stakeholders together to improve our environment, it is good and I am happy to give it a fair wind.

Let me return to the nitrates directive and the impact of intensive agriculture, especially the intensification of dairy over the past ten years or so. I do not want to single out any group. Farmers are the custodians of our landscape and environment and are working very hard to come up with innovative solutions to try to address the problems. They understand the threats posed to rivers. I was making a general point earlier to the effect that, regardless of where we stand on issues of considerable national importance like this, we should have a proper and respectful debate on them. The decision was taken and that was that. Off we went. People in agriculture have to be involved. Task forces see an intrinsic role for people working in agriculture, including farmers, in the management and stewardship of our environment. I acknowledge that organisations such as Boyne Rivers Trust do very important work in partnership with the farming community. I was very excited when the European Innovation Partnership came on board. This entails a very big investment in an important initiative. I hope our water quality can and will improve, but I remain sceptical because of the extension of the nitrates directive.

I am disappointed we will not get the opportunity to examine the principles of this Bill, determine what we can learn from them and insert them into Government policy and future legislation in the area of river water quality protection. I do not have a huge amount of confidence, based on the record over the past few years, that our approach will see any dramatic improvements. In fact, all we see are disimprovements. The initiative I have referred to is a genuine contribution not only to try to improve the Boyne river but also, perhaps, to introduce a new framework for the management of our rivers and, in addition, something that is missing, namely democratic oversight. I am referring to genuine public engagement on the management of our rivers and the inclusion of community experts and those in our communities who care about our rivers’ development and future. An opportunity has been missed in this regard, which is unfortunate.

The division is postponed until the weekly division time next week.