I have received notice from the following Senators that they propose to raise the following matters:

Senator Tom Clonan - The need for the Minister for Health to make a statement on the implementation of the national service plan 2021 and to fully fund the nationwide multidisciplinary teams for mental health of intellectual disability.

Senator Nessa Cosgrove - The need for the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science to provide an update on the delivery of the pay deal for resource persons and adult educators working in community training centres.

Senator Mark Duffy - The need for the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to make a statement on the introduction of a scheme similar to the immigrant investor programme to allow access to overseas funding.

Senator Maria Byrne - The need for the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance to make a statement on amending inheritance tax thresholds for individuals who have no children of their own.

Senator Mike Kennelly - The need for the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment to make a statement on the recent proposals made by the Vintners Federation of Ireland in its pre-budget submission.

Senator Linda Nelson Murray - The need for the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment to make a statement on measures currently in place to prevent counterfeit and unsafe toys from entering the Irish market.

The matters raised by the Senators are suitable for discussion. I have selected Senators Clonan, Cosgrove, Duffy and Maria Byrne and they will be taken now. The other Senators may give notice on another day of the matters that they wish to raise.

The Order of Business is No. 1, the Guardianship of Infants and Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2026, changed from, Guardianship of Infants (Amendment) Bill 2026 - Second Stage, to be taken at 12.45 p.m. and to conclude no later than 2.15 p.m., with the time allocated to the opening remarks of the Minister not to exceed ten minutes, group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes each, all other Senators not to exceed five minutes each and the Minister to be given no less than ten minutes to reply to the debate; No. 2, the Criminal Justice (International Cooperation on Electronic Evidence and Other Matters) Bill 2026 – Second Stage, to be taken at 2.15 p.m. or on the conclusion of No. 1, whichever is earlier, and to be brought to a conclusion after 90 minutes, with the time allocated to the opening remarks of the Minister not to exceed ten minutes, group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes each, all other Senators not to exceed five minutes each and the Minister to be given no less than ten minutes to reply to the debate; No. 3, motion re the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026, instruction to committee, to be taken on the conclusion of No. 2, with the time allocated to the opening remarks of the Minister not to exceed four minutes, all Senators not to exceed four minutes each and the Minister to be given no less than four minutes to reply to the debate; No. 4, the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 - Committee Stage, to be taken on the conclusion of No. 3 and to adjourn at 6 p.m. if not previously concluded; No. 5, Insurance (Disregard of Certain Medical History and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025 - Second Stage, to be taken at 6 p.m. and to conclude at 7.15 p.m., with the time allocated to the opening remarks of the Minister not to exceed eight minutes, all Senators not to exceed six minutes each and the Minister to be given no less than six minutes to reply to the debate; and No. 67, motion 3, Private Member's motion re visitor levy on paid overnight accommodation, to be taken at 7.15 p.m., with the time allocated to the debate not to exceed two hours.

I reiterate a call I made in the House last month for a dental tax credit to be made available in this year's budget to parents of primary school children. I propose a €200 dental tax credit for parents to help to cover the cost of routine dental treatment, because delays in the school dental screening programme are causing additional cost-of-living pressures for families. The report by colleagues on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health laid bare that just over half of eligible children nationwide received school dental screening in 2023. They are supposed to receive screening in second class, fourth class and sixth class, yet I have been contacted by parents in Limerick whose children are leaving the primary school system without ever having been seen by a dentist.

I acknowledge the significant steps that have been taken by the Government to improve the situation with dental care. My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Lawless, has increased the number of third level dentistry places. In time and with the new intake of 70 students to the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, RCSI, in Sandyford last September, this will increase the number of practising dentists available to us. However, I have spoken to the Irish Dental Association. A number of challenges remain for dentists and the association is calling for reform of the medical card dental scheme, including measures to simplify it. It talks about the introduction of a voucher-based approach in its pre-budget submission, which I support. I ask the Leader to bring this call for a dental tax credit for working families who are dipping into their savings and their pockets to put their children's healthcare requirements first, as we all do as parents. We could introduce a practical, targeted measure to assist them as a cost-of-living measure in the upcoming budget in addition to the longer term reforms the Minister is making. She is bringing forward work on this.

Sticking with the theme of health, I sought an update from the Minister for Health two weeks ago on the appointment of a project board to oversee the delivery of something that is badly needed in the mid-west, namely, new acute model four hospital beds. I understand the Minister is still working on that. We eagerly await the appointment of that board. I reiterate calls by clinicians and consultants in the mid-west for a step to be taken in the meantime, that is, to increase the number of consultants in the mid-west. Unfortunately, in the mid-west, we have the lowest number of consultants per head of population, with just 59 consultants per 100,000 people versus the national average of 82 per 100,000 people. It is part of the ongoing problem in the mid-west and I urge the Minister to address that issue immediately.

I support Senator Ryan's call on dental care. I would go a step further. I have called in this House previously to expand the role of hygienist to potentially increase capacity in the system. I would appreciate it if we could have a further discussion on that in the House.

Today, I acknowledge the report just published by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Drugs Use. It put nine months of extensive work into the report and I look forward to reading the recommendations. From what I have read so far, the committee took a health-led approach to this. I heard Deputy Gannon on RTÉ this morning saying it was up to the Government to enact and fund this because the costings for implementing the report had not been done.

Quite often, I have spoken in this House about resourcing the services that we have at the moment. I have regularly called for more Garda resources in my own region, a region that has not got an allocation in the five previous passings out from Templemore. The right approach to this not a complete U-turn on how we deal with it, but an attempt to resource the gardaí that we have on the ground and give them the opportunity to enforce the law in this regard.

I have often spoken with constituents who feel that drug use is out of control in parts of rural Ireland. Everyone has heard stories that if drug tests were done in some sports clubs at weekends, we would be surprised at the findings. We have all heard stories of knocks on the door after bereavements in areas and people calling in debts that the particular individual who passed away supposedly owed to these individuals.

We have to take a closer look at resourcing the Garda to deal with this problem. We should go a step further and take a closer look at resourcing Customs and Excise as well. I was at a pier on the west coast recently enough. I saw that the drugs strategy on the pier was a sign stapled to the wall telling people to ring a number if they noticed any unusual activity. If that is the sum total of what we are trying to do to prevent drugs coming into some of these rural ports, we need to have a look at that.

I would welcome the opportunity for the House to discuss the current strategy and have a good, heated conversation about what we think could better resolve matters and resource what we have on the ground already.

I would like to reference a case we heard of over the weekend where an elected representative faces personal legal exposure arising from what was described as a routine constituency representation. I will not go into the specifics, but I highlight it because whatever the outcome of that specific case, it broadens the discussion to a more structural problem that we cannot ignore. Put simply, we have a situation where institutions are protected from certain legal actions but elected individuals are not. Local authorities have insurance and legal backing. County councillors have insurance for statutory roles, but not representational roles. The councillor or TD may be left personally exposed, even when they believe that they are acting in good faith. I do not believe that is in the public interest. The reality is that the job of a public representative is, by its very nature, highly blurred, confused and often opaque. Representatives deal daily with sensitive personal issues such as housing, welfare and planning, often on the basis of incomplete information and under significant time pressure. They are expected to navigate complex legal frameworks, including data protection law, without the benefit of legal training or consistent clarity. Without addressing this gap, we face a real danger. We risk chilling or even paralysing representatives from doing their job in advocating, intervening and assisting constituents for fear that one mistake could result in serious personal legal and financial consequences.

There is also a deeper issue. If exposure to liability becomes too great, we risk politics, even local politics, becoming a rich man's game, where only those with the financial means to absorb that risk are willing to serve. In cases where the consequences of a mistake can be so severe, we risk something even more troubling - creating a situation where, if a representative finds themself already in breach of one rule, the incentive to fully comply going forward is weakened.

Of course, we must acknowledge limits. We cannot protect against everything, nor should we. There must be accountability where wrongdoing occurs. Otherwise, what is the point of fines or legal consequences? However, just because an issue is complex does not mean we should avoid it. It means that we should be willing to go in and bring clarity where confusion currently exists.

What is needed is a serious and structured conversation with the Minister about solutions. These may include a dedicated insurance product available to all elected representatives or a State-backed framework to support representatives acting in good faith within their role. At present, we have a patchwork system. That is evidenced by the fact that, even today, I could not find a central database on how much money the State has lost in legal actions from outside bodies regarding fines. Local authorities can be fined by outside bodies.

A lot of people may not be aware of this issues but it is important for all elected representatives. Currently, if a legal case is taken against a local authority or a member of a local authority, particularly with a local authority, their legal fees are paid but the fines in relation to that case must be met by the local authority or the public body. Our system is unclear, inconsistent and exposed. That must change and we must begin that work today. I just want to alert all representatives to this. It is a serious issue and the loophole needs to be closed.

I thank the Senator. She may submit it as a Commencement matter. Anois, an Seanadóir Maria McCormack.

What I have in my hand is the new Women's Aid report. It is fairly stark reading. I did not have a stapler big enough to staple it together. It is 160 pages long. This is just for 2025 and things are getting so much worse. I am calling for an urgent debate on domestic abuse and what we can do. This report is really frightening. It is the lived reality of women and children in Ireland today, but what is more frightening than what is in the report is that these are just the disclosed cases. We know that the statistics are much worse. Many more women do not feel safe to come forward or get to this stage.

Women's Aid's front-line services were contacted 37,790 times, the highest number ever recorded. A total of 62,275 closures of abuse against women and children were made. Women disclosed being assaulted, raped, stalked, strangled, inappropriately monitored, humiliated, controlled and terrorised. They disclosed financial abuse, coercive control, threats to kill, threats to take their children and abuse that continued even after relationships had ended. There were 1,321 threats to kill, 512 disclosures of non-fatal strangulation, 906 disclosures of stalking, 381 disclosures of rape and 1,500 disclosures of abuse during pregnancy or after giving birth. Women in Ireland in 2026 are being terrorised in their own homes by men who are supposed to love them. Children are growing up in homes where fear is normal, control is constant and safety does not exist.

I am asking for an urgent debate on violence against women because we cannot continue to treat this like a side issue. This is a national emergency. I say "national" because this is across the island of Ireland. Although this report is just for the Twenty-six Counties, this is an all-Ireland problem and we need an all-Ireland approach.

In that context, I welcome the important progress made yesterday by my colleague, Deputy Matt Carthy, when his Victims of Sexual Violence Civil Protection Orders Bill passed Committee Stage. This is important legislation because it will allow courts at the time of sentencing to put protection orders against abusers in place that remain in force after the sentence ends. A prison sentence does not automatically mean safety for these women. Survivors deserve protection that does not stop at the prison gate. They deserve not to live in fear of when their abusers will be released. I commend Deputy Carthy on driving his legislation forward. I also acknowledge the incredible women, survivors and campaigners, who have helped bring it to this point.

Their courage, advocacy and refusal to stay silent has pushed this onto the agenda.

I echo Senator McCormack's request for a full debate in this House on domestic and gender-based violence. Such a debate is long overdue.

I want to talk about a different issue. Last week, I had the privilege of welcoming a group of learners from the Sligo and Leitrim community training centres to Leinster House. There are more than 31 community training centres across the country. They cater for young people whose needs were not met in school or else school was unsuitable for their needs. These learners engaged actively when they came here on an educational tour. I commend the staff of Leinster House on the brilliant job they always do in making people feel so welcome. These young people, along with others, engage in different forms of education in training centres and via Youthreach and similar programmes. Traditional schools did not meet their needs, including their material needs. The payment of a training allowance of up to €250 a week, plus additional money for accommodation or travel, is a major incentive for young people who wish to continue with their education.

Upon graduation at level 3, which is equivalent to the junior certificate, or level 4, which is equivalent to the junior certificate applied, many students want to progress to a level 5 or level 6 qualification at a PLC college. However, because many of them are still under the age of 16, they find themselves cut off from this level of support and are unable to access social welfare supports such as jobseeker's allowance, which would alleviate their financial position. Instead, they find themselves reduced to an under-18 level of payment of around €45 a week or they have to apply for a SUSI grant, which is much less generous in its monetary value. Even at its highest rate, it is just €7,936 per year, which is €152 a week - a significant drop from a training allowance. Who would be able to cope with the loss of that income, especially in families where the parents might not be able to provide additional support to students at home?

What often happens is that when students finish their level 3 or level 4 qualification they want to stay in education because they are getting the training allowance but they are not able to progress to level 5 because they would lose a significant amount of money. It is hard for young people to get meaningful work at the moment. We want to keep people in education for as long as we can.

The Sligo Community Training Centre has recommended that a different option would be available that is also available in the Cavan Institute. I refer to a PLC access programme. Instead of going around in circles doing a level 3 course and then a level 4 course within the same training centre, they could do an access course for one or two years that would help them to transition to a PLC course. That would not only address their learning needs and be specifically tailored to them but it would also help with their financial situation.

I want to draw the attention of the House to a significant report that was published earlier. I refer to the final report of the Joint Committee on Drugs Use. This is a landmark piece of work. I acknowledge the outstanding contribution of all the Senators who are on the committee, namely Senators Ruane, Fitzpatrick, Ní Chuilinn, Costello and Nicole Ryan. I also commend Deputy Gannon, the chair, and all the other members of the committee. The briefing earlier this morning was wonderful. I want to say a special word about my colleague and good friend Senator Ruane. She has dedicated her life to this issue. It is the reason she came into politics in the first place. Her passion, lived experience and moral clarity have been a driving force in bringing us to this point. This report bears her fingerprints, and the people most affected by addiction in the country are better served because of her work. I just wanted to say that.

As founder and CEO of the RISE Foundation, which has spent more than 17 years supporting families impacted by loved ones' addictions, I have first-hand knowledge of how devastating and isolating it can be for families to watch a loved one struggle with substance misuse disorders. Families often feel completely alone and without support. They are forgotten in the conversation. They often frequently carry enormous anxiety and worry. They are without adequate support and have nowhere to turn. Therefore, I am particularly heartened that the committee's final report devotes such serious attention to family and community supports in particular. It recognises that substance misuse rarely exists in isolation, that it is bound up with the huge trauma and poverty, mental health and housing issues people experience and that our response must address all of these together.

What strikes me most about the report is how deeply person-centred it is. It places the individual at the heart of everything, recognising that people living with substance misuse problems are not individuals to be managed or criminals to be punished. That is really important. They are human beings who deserve dignity, compassion and access to the right supports at the right time. That is a crucial shift in how we think about this issue. It is long overdue. No child grows up saying that they want to be somebody with a substance misuse disorder.

The report also calls for the establishment of a permanent Oireachtas joint committee on drugs use and for its recommendations to be incorporated into the forthcoming national drugs strategy. Both of these asks are crucial. I call on the Government to take this report seriously and to act on its recommendations without delay. For too long, Ireland's response to addiction has been shaped by stigma and a criminal justice lens that has not reduced harm and has caused enormous damage to individuals, families and communities. This report offers a clear evidence-based and humane path forward. This is a report on which we should have a debate. I would like to see a debate on this issue. I again commend the committee on its report and my colleague Senator Ruane on the great work she has done.

I support what Senator McCormack said about the horrific Women's Aid statistics published earlier. Domestic violence in this country has reached epidemic proportions. I remind the House that we had an extensive debate on the matter with the Minister for justice on 12 May but I agree with the Senator that we must do anything we can to stop the violence.

Last week, I made an impassioned plea regarding the proposed closure of the 14 step-down beds at the Cottage Hospital in Drogheda, saying that it must not happen. Following extensive meetings with management over the week and intervention by the Minister of State, Deputy Murnane O'Connor, and others, we have a stay of execution in respect of those beds. I cannot overstate how vital this service is. It frees up beds in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, which is already under severe pressure. This is a service for elderly and vulnerable people and to remove it from the town is unthinkable.

I attended a very busy protest rally on Monday. There were so many people there. I started a petition, and we have almost 1,100 signatures on it. This is not going to happen, but at the same time it is only just a review that is taking place at the moment so I have to keep the pressure on. We have to make sure that HSE management and the Minister for Health are aware of this. This is not just happening in Drogheda but right across the country. Our smaller grassroots healthcare is being downgraded when we need it to be upgraded, especially in large towns and emerging cities like Drogheda.

If the Cathaoirleach will indulge me, I want to comment on the fact that we have what I suppose passes for a heatwave in Ireland at the moment. We are experiencing very high temperatures, and young people want to go out, swim and have fun. Without wanting to spoil any fun and games, I urge Members to please speak to their children. Let them know that if they are not particularly strong swimmers or if they are swimming in a dangerous area where there are no lifeguards, they should take care. We do not want to have any more statistics with regard to the loss of young people.

Before I call on the next speaker I welcome guests of Deputy Lahart to the Gallery. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann.

I want to share in what my colleagues have said and welcome the report of the drugs committee. Our colleagues in the Seanad have put such vital work into it. I agree with the call that it should be a permanent committee. We should have a debate in this House on drugs use, drugs policy and what we are doing as a State. I honestly admit that I have reservations about the decriminalisation of drug use, but that is my personal view. It obviously cannot just be the criminal justice system that is involved in this issue because it has to be about much more than that. We must support family resource centres and youth centres, which we are not supporting well enough. I visit many of them and they do not know where to go for funding. They are not getting a solid line of funding.

We are not doing enough at a societal level for a health-led approach to prevent drug use. Senator Scahill outlined that An Garda Síochána was not being resourced. We have talked time after time about putting more gardaí into rural Ireland. We need more there. We need more drug units in rural Ireland to prevent the criminals in the system who are bringing illegal substances in for sale and supply. We are not doing enough to deter and catch these people, and we need more resources there. Revenue definitely needs more. I welcome the work of the committee. We need a debate on this matter and we need action, because this is affecting every townland, parish and part of our society. We need change.

Ironically, the next matter I want to talk about is supporting our rural pubs, which I would see as a vital asset in rural Ireland. These are community centres, not just places where they sell alcohol and other substances, which I suppose can cause desperate effects. We need to support rural pubs, which provide a vital service in our countryside. Over 2,000 pubs have closed in recent years. The Vintners Federation of Ireland has a solid proposal of a tax rebate scheme from the Government. We need to act before it is too late and we lose our pubs. I see that the incoming British Prime Minister is talking about supporting pubs in the UK. I am not saying we need to look across the water for best practice, but we need to act before it is too late for our rural pubs.

Ní raibh mé anseo inné. Déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Seanadóir Ahearn as a bheith ceaptha ina Cheannaire ar an Seanad.

I want to raise the issue of dental services. My colleagues in the Dáil had a motion on this yesterday and discussed it in detail. I welcome the fact that the Government did not oppose it. Senator Ryan has raised the matter today as well. However, there needs to be more done than just not opposing a motion. There needs to be actual planning and investment in services.

We have 11,000 people on waiting lists for some form of dental care, be it orthodontics, including braces, or routine surgery, and 8,000 of those have been waiting over a year. Some 40% of our children are waiting more than two years for services. One parent was in contact with me. She has 11-year-old twins who have never had any sort of access to a dentist within the public system. She cannot afford to pay privately. She had to for an emergency once for one of her children, but she is working part-time, her husband is unwell and they are depending on the working family payment, so it is not possible for them to afford proper dental care.

Another parent told me hat her daughter had been called for a hygienist appointment but was sick on the day and could not attend. She sent her apologies, but the child has been waiting 18 months to get another appointment with the hygienist.

A third person told me that her son had been on a list for years for orthodontic treatment. He has now turned 18 and has been told he will be taken off the list. He does not know where he is going to go to get this orthodontic treatment. There needs to be a pathway from child to adult services.

We need to hear a plan from the Minister on the Government is going to address this. We have the lowest number of dentists per head of population in all of the EU, at nearly half the EU average. Only one third of dentists are providing care under the public dental treatment services scheme, which is quite outdated and needs to be updated. Only one in ten dentists works for the HSE. We need to look at some way of tying in dental services with the GP visit card, for example, so that people can get dental care based on need rather than ability to pay.

I welcome Ms Aileen Whelan from Play Activity and Leisure Ireland to the Public Gallery. She is a guest of Senator Linda Nelson Murray.

I wish the very best of luck and good wishes to Senator Ahearn in his role as Leader of the Seanad.

Today, I remember the heavenly birthday of Rory Coady, the son of Craig Coady, who has been a campaigner on Friedreich's ataxia. He, along with 200 other families, are campaigning for a drug approval. They have now been waiting over 840 days for that drug to come through the assessment criteria. The drug company has submitted all of the most up-to-date information required by the HSE.

The Minister for Health has done phenomenal work in engaging in the launch of the review into the drug reimbursement scheme, as well as the review of the whole process. We are total laggards when it comes to how long it takes for a drug to be approved. It should be 180 days, but these families have waited 840 days so far. Time is muscle. Every day we are waiting, families can see their loved ones, their most precious, deteriorate. They do not know what the next day brings.

While it might not be perfect, we know that this drug has a 55% success rate and can hold the condition where it is at. It can prevent that child, who currently has the ability to walk, from progressing to a wheelchair. It means that the person who is in college can continue to live an independent life.

I know that people met the Taoiseach and that there was a commitment to have a decision at the end of June or the first week of July. I am calling for those dates to be held to and for the HSE to be put under pressure to deliver on this drug. A success rate of 55% is a hell of a lot better than no success.

Sometimes, I believe that things happen for a reason. On my way to Leinster House today, I spoke to a friend of mine who talked about the struggles of dealing with a parent with Alzheimer's disease and how difficult it was for the family and, obviously, the person with dementia, who had worked all their lives, to adjust to the situation.

This morning, the Alzheimer Society of Ireland gave a fantastic presentation over in Buswell's Hotel on what it was looking for in the budget. I was drawn to the fact it was looking to expand capacity at existing day care centres. One such centre that badly needs extra resources and money is the Alzheimer's day care centre in Navan, in Whistlemount on the Kells Road. An increase of just €100,000 in the budget will help three day care centres across Ireland. These are the centres in Cork, Navan and Carlow, which are seeing the biggest increases in Alzheimer's cases. Senator Rabbitte would know all about this from her time working in disability services.

The organisation has big asks in what it is looking for in the budget, and I encourage the Leader to write to the Minister to express that the amount of cases each year is growing by 3%. In many cases, Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia are linked to Parkinson's, in which respect we spoke last week about the need for an increased budget. Will the Leader write a letter to the Minister for Health about this matter to see what we can do to help, particularly the Whistlemount Day Care Centre in Navan, County Meath?

I agree with the comments on the Committee on Drugs Use's report. I acknowledge the work that everyone has done on that. As Senator Black said, Senator Ruane's fingerprints are all over it, and it is the better for that. It is important to ensure that we have a health-led drugs policy.

On Monday, the housing Minister, Deputy Browne, made particularly bleak commentary on the housing issue. He said he had no idea when homeless numbers might finally begin to fall. He also said that he did not know if the Government's housing policies were doing anything to get people out of homelessness. That was a pretty bleak statement to make. He also admitted that the number of people was still increasing and, at best, would only stagnate in the near future rather than decrease. This is an acknowledgement of failure by the Government, yet there is no sense that there will be any change to the plan and process. In many ways, it is normalising failure around housing and effectively throwing in the towel. When you think about it, there are 18,000 people on the homeless list in what is a wealthy country. That is shameful, and we need to do better. How many times have Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael claimed that they will solve the housing crisis? The Minister has effectively thrown in the towel and acknowledged that he will not be able to solve the housing crisis. How many times have Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael housing Ministers stood up and said that they will make progress on ending homelessness and bring down housing waiting lists? There are nearly 18,000 homeless people in this State, and that number is increasing every single month.

It is shameful. We need the Minister to come to the House and explain how he is going to change policy in order to make a difference to people's lives and end homelessness.

I will take the opportunity to highlight the commemoration celebrations of the birth of Admiral William Brown from Foxford, County Mayo. Members may be interested to know that he was the founder of the Argentinian navy. He was born in 1777 in Foxford and led an incredible life. He was very much inspired by the opportunity to help to achieve independence for Argentina, having left Ireland, which was under much oppression and political, economical and societal strife at the time. The impact he made is incredible. The weekend celebration was the 249th anniversary of his birth. There was a Mass in Foxford church and a march through the street by the Foxford Brass Band, which is celebrating its 130th anniversary. This was followed by speeches at the walkway by the River Moy and a get-together in the Admiral Brown Memorial Hall.

The committee is gearing up for the 250th celebrations next year. I am asking for the support of the House to make sure that the Government and all key stakeholders in the Irish Embassy in Argentina and indeed the Argentinian Embassy here support the committee's efforts to make sure we put on a show and a real celebration of the ties that link both countries, in particular the Admiral William Brown connection in Foxford. A play is being launched later this year called Liam. I met some of its producers at the weekend. They are enthusiastic. It was great to see the number of Argentinians, members of their diaspora here, celebrating the exploits of the Argentinian team over the past two games in the World Cup. They are passionate about the strong values and ties that connect both countries. I acknowledge Margaret Reilly, chair of the committee, who is doing brilliant work. We want as much support as possible for the committee ahead of the 250th celebrations next year, including the naval ship from Argentina, the Libertad . Hopefully, it will dock in Dublin and around Kilcummin Bay.

I thank my colleagues from across the House who were part of the Committee on Drugs Use. We will get into a more detailed debate when the report comes before the Houses. This week has been quite emotional for me as we acknowledge the work of citizens' assemblies, politicians and Departments. The only reason I am in politics is to achieve decriminalisation. If anybody wants to get rid of me from politics just give me decriminalisation and I will be gone. Decriminalisation of the person who uses drugs is not about a substance. A substance does not go to a jail cell, a substance does not die or sit in its room lonely. People do that. It is not about substances; it is about the person. When decriminalising drugs, we should consider not the drugs but the person. We are decriminalising the person for something that they are experiencing.

The weather is warm at the moment. One of the reasons I have my full arms on display today is to remind myself that every flower on my arms represents a friend of mine who has gone, either directly from overdose or from drug-related issues. Every flower represents the month they died, with the month that flower blooms. While we recognise the international evidence, I acknowledge the promise I made each and every time I kissed each one of them goodbye on the head as they lay in the funeral home, that one day they will not be a criminal purely because they experienced addiction or because they used drugs. I ask as we move forward to consider that report, that we remember it is not about substances, it is about people. It is about how we treat people and how we create every opportunity not to compound that harm for people who are already experiencing some of the greatest vulnerabilities and complexities in their lives. I want to remember my friends today and to mark their lives as being part of the journey that I will continue on, as this report is given more life. I thank everyone here who has supported the work to date.

I thank Senator Ruane for her work in championing that committee and the report and for bringing the experience of people she knew to the Seanad and to the committee.

In just over three weeks' time TDs and Ministers will go on holiday. They will not be back in the Chamber until the middle of September. That is not news to anyone but what will surprise people is that on 31 July, while they are all away and the Dáil is in recess, the Government will restore excise duties on petrol and diesel. Last week the Government voted to increase the cost of fuel by 27 cent on petrol and 32 cent on diesel. This will place immense pressure on households that are already struggling to get by. Prices in Ireland are 36% above the EU average and the Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland has warned that the inflation shock will worsen in the coming months because of the war in Iran.

Budget 2027 must be revolutionary because every time the Government talks about disability support, fuel price reduction or the cost of living it tells us to wait and see what the budget will bring. From what I can see, the Government likes to get a nice headline for introducing temporary financial support and then when people have received the tiniest bit of breathing space, it pulls the rug from under them. This cannot be allowed to happen. It is not a coincidence that ahead of the vote on excise duties and increasing carbon taxes in October, both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste came out in support of removing the three-day wait. I feel it was a "look over there" move while they do this. The story on fuel prices being increased was buried under articles of backbenchers being unhappy with the Taoiseach and speculation on who in Fine Gael would follow the Tánaiste's lead. The timing of the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach having this epiphany is questionable. It is insincere of the Government to impose an increase in fuel prices while they are off on holidays and cannot be held to account by the public. Restoring excise duties and increasing carbon tax is wrong. I ask that we have statements in this House on that matter.

I commend my colleague, Senator Ruane, on the work she has done in the area and on the report that was launched today. She was also talking from personal experience. I know, even in my own family, what addiction can be like.

I also want to speak today about a place I visited that is inspiring young people to engage with science, technology, engineering and mathematics called Explorium, which is in Sandyford. I visited it recently and was impressed not only by the scale but the vision and the innovation behind it.

For over 20 years the Government has discussed creating a national children's science campus. Reports have been written, proposals developed and great plans made but yet today, that ambition remains unrealised. What struck me on my visit to Sandyford was that we may already have what we are looking for. I never came across it before. I saw an email on LinkedIn and said I would visit this place. It is a discovery centre with hundreds of interactive exhibits, where children learn by doing. They are not simply reading about science. They are experimenting, discovering and developing curiosity in a way that brings the learning to life.

We pride ourselves on being global leaders in technology, engineering and innovation but the next generation of scientists, engineers and innovators are sitting in the classrooms today. If we want to remain competitive then we need to nurture them at a young age. From what I was shown I believe it is a value for money question that deserves consideration. We hear discussions about investing tens of millions of euro in a national centre, but perhaps we already have one within 10 km of Dublin. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ask whether it makes more sense to build something new or actually to develop an existing national asset.

I commend the team at Explorium on what has been achieved. It demonstrates what is possible when you put your mind to it. If we are serious about preparing an Ireland for the future, we must not only invest in buildings but in curiosity, opportunity and young minds.

Explorium is exactly that.

First, I thank Senator Ruane for her contribution here today regarding her own experience and that of her friends, colleagues and associates in relation to addiction. One of the great things about Seanad Éireann is the intimacy of this place as a Chamber and how each and every Member on all sides of this House brings their personal experience to their parliamentary work. There is nothing to beat personal experience, the lived experience. I acknowledge and thank Senator Ruane for sharing. It is never easy to talk about your own personal sets of circumstances. Politicians are great at talking about everybody else and the problem here, there and yonder, but when it comes right to the core of the person, it exposes a vulnerability about him or her. When we are vulnerable, I think we are at our strongest. I really believe that in connection with anything important. That authenticity makes us real and makes us connect emotionally. That is really important. Few people have that gift and Senator Ruane is one of them and I thank her for that. I thank her for that openness that she brings and that empathy about her own life experience in her parliamentary business. It makes her a very special person. I am so glad, and I think we all are, that Senator Ruane is a Member of this diverse House. That is the other great thing; we are diverse.

I have only one question to ask the Leader. Tonight there will be a very interesting Private Members' motion before us, which I do not intend to go into now, in the name of Fianna Fáil. I welcome that healthy debate about it, but it occurred to me that it all goes back to that issue of core funding for local government. We have in this country, at best, local administration. We do not have a comprehensive local government model such as there is across Europe. Today I looked at the chamber of commerce's submission to the local democracy task force consultation, dated August 2025. Will the Leader facilitate a letter to or communication with the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, and the principal Minister, Deputy James Browne, on when the Government intends to publish the local government task force final report and recommendations? I ask that that would happen before the summer recess. It is important. The councillors of all parties and none now expect its publication. It is timely, essential and important. Will the Leader facilitate the request? That is all I am asking.

I wish all the Senators a happy St. John's Day. St. John's Day is a religious festival which we celebrate quite strongly at home in Aghinagh. There will be a mass celebrated at St. John's Well tonight at 8 p.m. and following that, there will be a platform dance on the Mushera platform on Mushera mountain between Aghinagh and Millstreet at 8.45 p.m. RTÉ will be there also, briefly, to do a clip, because it is doing a piece on traditions in the area. I wish well everyone who is attending it and the group behind the Mushera Platform dance and the maintenance of St. John's Well.

I want to speak about another local issue, but one which I am sure affects constituencies all across the country, and that is the rise we are seeing in rural crime. Over the past few weeks, in my own area of mid-Cork, across Dripsey, Aghabullogue and Rylane, we are seeing a spate of car thefts late at night in rural country yards but also in village housing estates. We need, I believe, a cross-departmental approach to dealing with this. It is a Department of justice issue but it is also a Department of rural affairs and community development issue. There is a rural safety plan, which was published in 2025, but we need to take more measures. We need to give more supports to groups, such as Muintir na Tíre and Community Alert. We need to provide more information and awareness to residents in rural areas as to how they can make their property more safe at night and how they can protect themselves.

A larger problem in this regard is rural isolation, that communities are probably not as strong or as close as they once were and, therefore, it is difficult for communities to work together against these kind of things. We are seeing that Community Alert groups and Muintir na Tíre groups, while still a big part of rural life and rural Ireland, are not as strong as they once were. I am calling for us to have the Minister for justice in here to discuss this issue, not so much for statements but on how we tackle it and what we can do to prevent it, for example, whether we need to look at stronger sentencing and better community awareness and to discuss the rural safety plan of 2025.

I thank the 18 Senators for their contributions. Senator Dee Ryan spoke about the dental scheme and simplifying it. As well as outlining an issue with dental care and access for children needing dental care, the Senator outlined a solution or a measure that could possibly help, which is the €200 tax credit. Obviously, we have a budget in September. I know the Senator will use her powers of persuasion within her own party - I am sure we will too - to try to convince the Minister. We have done a lot in the health service, particularly for children and young children under the age of eight, especially, but dental care is critical. It is not something we have done as much as we have done in other areas. When you are talking about targeted costs for cost of living, dental care is key to someone's health for life and particularly at an early stage.

The Senator also spoke about the new acute model for beds but, obviously, an increase in consultants across the mid-west is something that has been called for for quite some time by the Senator and many others. It is one of the reasons healthcare in the mid-west has been on the news and has been criticised or people in this Chamber and the Lower Chamber have been critical of it. I will ask the Minister to respond to that.

Senators Scahill, O'Donovan, Black, Andrews and Ruane spoke about the report from the drugs committee. This is one of the reasons it is positive we set up a drugs committee for people who have very different political views but who can come together to a consensus on what needs to be done. Taking all the contributions into account today, obviously, if we knew it was that easy to get Senator Ruane out of this Chamber, she has strengthened the case for doing it - I am only joking. On a serious note, people come with experience and have different perspectives on it. We all respect that. We obviously respect the Senator's view that this needs to be a health-led approach, but also we have people, such as Senator O'Donovan, who comes from the other side of it in terms of gardaí and the lack of resources they have. There are different perspectives on it. We have seen successes in other countries where a health-led approach has been beneficial, and not taking away from the fact that we certainly need to invest more in the Garda, resources and education on that, this report starts that conversation. It it is to be hoped it will come to this House to be fully debated. I commend the Members on that committee, as Senator Black said, on the work they have done. Senator Scahill also called for a debate in the House. I will write to the Minister to see if we can have a debate on that in the House. I suspect it will come anyway but I will write to the Minister to see if that is possible.

Senator Keogan spoke about legal costs for public representatives. It would be a huge barrier for people to being able to do their jobs if they feared that the costs would come back on them. It is not something that I am aware has happened to anyone I know, but if it happens to one, it gets talked about and it puts fear into other public representatives about what they can and cannot do for fear of a financial impact on them. It is worth having that discussion on it. I do not know if a Commencement matter is the best way to approach it with the Minister. Certainly we need to make sure, if we want to encourage people, especially local representatives, to get in politics and play a role, that they need not be fearful of repercussions when they are simply trying to work with, as the Senator said, complex issues. I will talk to the Minister on that.

Senator McCormack spoke about the Women's Aid report. Senator Comyn raised it as well. We had a debate on this last month. Even though it is an incredibly important issue, I am not sure it is credible to go to the Minister to say that we need to have another debate within three or four weeks of having had a debate. I will look at doing something on it, perhaps some time in the future, because it is a very serious issue. The Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, has done a lot of work on it. I know the Minister, Deputy McEntee, has been criticised by the other side of the House for a lot of things but certainly, I refer to the issue of domestic violence.

On foot of the spike in domestic violence, particularly during and after Covid, the funding for community groups that deal with the consequences of such violence increased dramatically, but the number of people seeking support has also increased dramatically. We will see if we can have a debate on the matter. Sinn Féin Members have a Private Members' slot before the end of term. If they want to do so, they could table a motion. It is not for me to tell them what to do.

Senator Nessa Cosgrove spoke about the really good work that community training centres do. She spoke about the challenge of going from level 3 to level 5 and the drop in financial support. I suspect that a Commencement matter is the best way for the Senator to go on that one. It is important to acknowledge that they do incredible work.

Senator Frances Black spoke about the final report of the drugs committee. We will try to get an opportunity to speak about it in this House.

Senator Alison Comyn spoke about the 14 step-down beds in Drogheda. It is very welcome that there has been a stay of execution in that regard. I know the Senator has done an awful lot of work in highlighting this matter. Sometimes when you highlight things, you get a stay of execution. That is a win, but you have to make sure that stay of execution becomes permanent. The first win is actually stopping those beds being taken away. It is one of the hurdles crossed, and I know the Senator will continue to work hard to ensure that those beds are retained, particularly as they are vital for towns such as Drogheda.

Senator Noel O'Donovan also spoke about the report of the drugs committee. The Senator raised the issue of rural pubs. Senator Mike Kennelly spoke about that as well. It is hugely important that those pubs are supported. Yesterday, the vintners made a submission outlining the kinds of supports they need and the challenges they face. The Senator's area in west Cork is a very popular destination during the summer months. There are awful lot of wet pubs there that do extremely well in summertime but that need supports for the rest of the year.

Like Senator Dee Ryan, Senator Pauline Tully referred to dental services. Senator Tully outlined some of the challenges involved. Senator Ryan made a very good proposal. It would be good to a debate on the matter. I will try to contact the Minister to see if that would be possible.

Senator Anne Rabbitte referred to Rory Coady's birthday. The wait for approval for the medication relating to Friedreich's ataxia is very frustrating for families. The Minister has outlined the challenges with getting approval. Sometimes the drug companies do not contact the Government to get approval. They go to other countries first, and sometimes Ireland has to reach out to these drug companies to tell them to submit applications. Sometimes that takes longer than people might think. Once an application is in, the HSE tries to make a decision as quickly as possible. If it has committed to the end of June or the first week in July, that commitment needs to be followed through on for these families.

Senator Linda Nelson Murray raised the issue of Alzheimer's disease and the capacity in daycare centres. Most people here would have some family connection in that regard. I know someone who suffered with Alzheimer's. I have a number of aunts and uncles who were affected by it. Daycare centres provide a major service for those suffering with the disease. Senator Nelson Murray particularly asked about Navan daycare centre. Because of the increase in the number of cases in that Navan and in other areas across the country, there is a need for them to be prioritised. I will write to the Minister on the Senator's behalf. I know she will work on it herself, as she always does for services in Navan.

Senator Chris Andrews spoke about the report of the drugs committee. He also referred to James Browne and the homeless figures. Obviously, those figures are not where we wanted them to be. We have taken a lot of measures in housing which have been successful. We can only solve this problem by building more houses and the figures have been good for 2025. The figures for the first quarter of 2026 are exceptionally good and we need that to continue. That is because of measures introduced by this Government and because of increased funding brought in by this Government. That does not take away from the fact that we still have people, including families with young kids, who are homeless. Those families need to be prioritised. I respect the Senator's view that. We can always have a debate on the matter in the House if needs be.

Senator Mark Duffy spoke about events in Foxford and the celebrations relating to the 249th anniversary of Admiral Brown's birth. He acknowledged the work of Margaret Reilly, chair of the committee. It is important to connect various towns to other areas across the world. In Tipperary, we have a connection with Argentina. In the 1900s, Paddy McCarthy from Cashel went over and started a small football team with a few people who were living there. That club became Boca Juniors. Cashel has a huge connection with the Boca Juniors club. We always say that is why that club's players wear the blue and yellow of Tipperary. It is important especially when it will celebrate the 250th anniversary next year. I suggest the Senator should work with the embassy. It should be possible to get some high-level government people to come over to celebrate that. Mayo is used to welcoming high-level government people. I have no doubt that Senator Duffy can bring a high-level person from Argentina to Mayo.

Senator Lynn Ruane also referred to the final report of the drugs committee. I acknowledge her powerful and emotional contribution. She has an awful lot of qualities, and certainly knows and is passionate about this matter in particular.

Senator Sarah O'Reilly spoke about the excise duty on petrol and diesel. I would be more than happy to have a debate on that. I think most people on this side of the House would welcome a debate on that. We immediately brought in a package of €750 million when the war in Iran started. That has been hugely beneficial to people right across the country. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have always said that these measures are flexible in terms of decisions that can be made. We know the winter has the potential to be difficult and we need to keep money aside for that. That is what a reasonable Government would do. When we see that a deal has not been agreed on Iran, even though it was promised last Friday, we know that there will be challenges for us later in the year. As a result of decisions made in recent years, the Government has funding in place to allow it to support our people through the winter period. That is what we will do. If the Senator wants a debate on the matter, I am sure everyone in this House, particularly on the Government side, would be more than happy to have it.

Senator Aubrey McCarthy referred to Explorium in Sandyford. I have been looking to bring my kids to it but have not done so yet. It looks amazing. When talking about the national science centre, this is exactly what they have been talking about. I know what he is saying about not doubling up. I am hoping to bring my kids up during the summer months. It is a great facility that opens up the minds of young kids into science and the world of wonder.

And old people-----

And old people as well.

-----like me.

I am sure the Senator is talking about himself, not me. The facility is wonderful. It would be great for the Senators to go and see what has been done out in Sandyford.

Senator Victor Boyhan spoke about the Fianna Fáil Private Members' motion. The local government task force has been brought up a number of times by Senators Davitt and Boyhan. I have contacted the Minister's office to make sure that the task force's final report is published. When it is, it is important that the House has a debate on it. We speak to councillors quite regularly and they are concerned. They want it published and they want to know what is going to be in it so we will make sure that is done.

Senator Eileen Lynch raised the issue of rural crime, which is a real challenge and which has increased in recent years. She is probably right that it is not just a justice issue and the Department of rural affairs can play a role in terms of working with local communities. We obviously need more gardaí, particularly in rural areas, but we cannot just rely on that. The communities that need support need to play their part as well. They want to do so, and that is what we will do. I will ask for a debate with the Minister for justice on that. We will see if it will be possible to have such a debate.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. His officials are on the way. We now move to the Guardianship of Infants and Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2026, which was changed from Guardianship of Infants (Amendment) Bill 2026.

I am pleased to introduce the Bill to the Seanad this afternoon. This Bill upholds a fundamental principle that those convicted of the most serious crimes should not retain automatic legal authority over the children left behind. The Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment to examine proposals to remove guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partners or a parent of their child. As I said in the Dáil, the Bill is not about additional punishment for a crime, rather it is about the welfare and protection of children. It is intended to protect vulnerable children from further trauma, provide clarity for surviving family members, and prevent perpetrators from maintaining control over the lives of their children.

I welcome to the Public Gallery in the Seanad David French and his sister Veronica, who have campaigned tirelessly for a change to the law in memory of their sister, Valerie, who was murdered by her husband seven years ago. Valerie’s husband still retains all guardianship rights over their three children. I supported Mr. French in his campaign and, since becoming Minister for justice, I have worked to change the law. There are other families in the same terrible situation. This Bill acknowledges their circumstances and, I hope, in some way ameliorates their difficulties.

This important Bill will give the State the necessary power to ensure the safety and welfare of the children left behind by such horrendous crimes are protected. It will do so in a manner that ensures their voices are heard and that their best interests are the paramount consideration at all times. The State must play a role here. Guardianship when one guardian kills another should not be regarded as a matter of private law to be determined between the families concerned, but must be regarded as a child protection and welfare issue.

As I said earlier, this Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment. It is part of the ongoing work to implement appropriate recommendations from the independent study on familicide published in May 2023. The study was commissioned by my Department to analyse and present recommendations on how the State’s response could be more effective, in terms of response after an incident occurs and how systems can be put in place to learn lessons with a view to reducing future incidence of domestic homicides insofar as this may be possible.

The Bill ensures that, following the conviction of a parent or guardian of a child for the murder or manslaughter of another parent or guardian of that child, the Child and Family Agency will make an application to the courts. Tusla will be required to make an application as soon as practicable for an order that may remove or restrict the guardianship rights of the convicted guardian. My Department has worked with the Department of Children, Equality, and Disability to ensure the Bill is focused on child welfare. The role of Tusla in making these applications recognises its important role as the State agency with primary responsibility for promoting the safety and well-being of children.

Given the tragic and serious circumstances being addressed by this Bill, Tusla will in many cases already be involved in providing support to the children and their caregivers. In some cases, Tusla may be making use of its powers under the Child Care Act 1991 to safeguard the safety and welfare of the child in the immediate aftermath of the crime.

The Bill is a concise one but it deals with fundamental rights under our Constitution, including Article 42A, which provides that the State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as possible, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights. The Bill will apply to both married and unmarried guardians. Children will have a voice in proceedings and the courts will ensure that the child’s best interests are balanced against the rights of a guardian who has failed in his or her duty towards that child by his or her horrific crime of killing that child’s other parent. Importantly, the provisions of this Bill will apply also to cases where one guardian killed another before the commencement of the legislation. This is an essential element to ensure that Tusla has the power, where it considers it necessary in the best interests of the child, to make an application to restrict or remove guardianship in the circumstances.

The Guardianship of Infants and Child Care (Amendment) Bill contains six sections. Section 1 provides for the Short Title, collective citation and commencement of the Bill. Section 2 provides for definitions defining “the Act of 1964” as the Guardianship of Infants Act of that year and the “Act of 1991” as the Child Care Act of that year. Section 3 inserts a new Part IIA into the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. That part gives effect to the programme for Government commitment to remove or restrict guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partners or a parent of their child. The new part contains nine sections. The first of these, section 12B, defines terms that are used. Section 12C is the principal operative provision of the Bill. Tusla must apply to the District Court within six months of the conviction of a guardian for the murder or manslaughter of another guardian of the child. This application must be made where the agency has reasonable cause to believe that the convicted guardian has failed in his or her parental duty to such extent that the child’s safety or welfare is likely to be prejudicially affected. An order may be made by the court that will be suspended and take effect once an alternative arrangement is in place, either a care order under the 1991 Act or that another guardian is already in place. The court must consider both the failure of duty and the best interests of the child before making such an order. An order may either restrict the convicted guardian’s powers and duties or remove completely the convicted guardian from office as a guardian. The court may impose such conditions as it considers necessary in the best interests of the child.

It is important here to emphasise that Tusla is required in these circumstances to make an application. However, it will be a matter for the court to determine the form of the order to be made, considering the best interests of the child. Section 12D provides for the same procedure and powers on the part of Tusla and the court in circumstances where the other guardian of the child has been a victim of a serious offence but has not been killed. A serious offence is defined as an offence causing serious harm, which carries at least a penalty of ten years imprisonment. In these circumstances Tusla may apply to the court for an order removing or restricting guardianship of the guardian who has been convicted of a serious offence. Tusla may make such an application where there has been a failure of parental duty, as in section 12C, and there has been a change in the care arrangements or guardianship of the child as a result of the serious offence. Unlike section 12C regarding murder and manslaughter, the provision here will be a discretionary power for Tusla, that is, the power to ensure that guardianship of the convicted only can still be removed or restricted in situations where the victim guardian has not been killed but is not in a position to exercise their guardianship.

Section 12E provides for the procedures for a review of court orders under this Part. Section 12F provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the voice of the child in proceedings under this Part. This section applies the relevant provisions of the 1991 Act, as amended by the Child Care Act 2022. This includes a requirement for the court to appoint a guardian ad litem unless it is satisfied that the best interests of the child can be determined without such an appointment. Where a court has decided not to appoint a guardian ad litem, it will be required to give reasons for its decisions in writing. Section 12G provides for jurisdiction and the conduct of proceedings under this Part, which will be heard in the District Court and in the family District Court on commencement of the Family Courts Act 2024. Section 12H provides for the necessary safeguards in relation to data protection and data sharing. Consultation has been undertaken with the Data Protection Commission in developing these provisions. They will provide the necessary legal basis to permit Tusla to share and receive data with relevant bodies to enable it to perform its functions under this Part.

Section 12I provides for individuals to be made notice parties to proceedings. Any guardian of the child must be made a notice party to the proceedings. Any relative of the child may seek leave to be joined as a notice party and this is broadly defined. This section implements a request of stakeholders and a recommendation of the Oireachtas joint committee that family members be in a position to be made notice parties to proceedings. Section 12J provides for the retrospective application of this Part to cases where a conviction pre-dates the commencement of the provisions of this Bill.

Section 4 is a technical amendment to section 8A of the 1964 Act and Part 3 of the Bill, comprising sections 5 and 6, provides for a short set of technical amendments to the provision for guardians ad litem in Part VA of the Child Care Act 1991. These amendments are included at the request of Deputy Foley, the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality. They ensure that the policy intent in respect of the appointment of guardians ad litem and the provision to them of legal advice and legal representation under the guardian ad litem national service, which is in operation as of yesterday, is set out clearly in the legislation for the avoidance of any doubt. Where the guardian ad litem appointed for a child is no longer available or suitable to act for the child, in order to continue to meet the requirements of the court order concerned, it is an administrative necessity to provide in legislation for a replacement guardian ad litem for the child.

In terms of other amendments, I intend to bring on Committee Stage some technical amendments of a drafting nature to provide for cases under these provisions to be heard in the family District Court on commencement of the 2024 Act and a technical amendment to section 6C of the 1964 Act to account for the insertion by this Bill of the new Part 2A. Many details will merit debate, and I look forward to contributions from Senators.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire ar ais go dtí an Teach inniu. The Minister is welcome back to the House this afternoon. I also welcome David and Veronica to the Visitor's Gallery. On behalf of Fianna Fáil I welcome and support this Bill. As the Minister outlined, the Bill progresses a legislative change to allow for the removal of guardianship rights from a person who has been convicted of killing their partner or the other parent of the child or both. The Bill is a programme for Government commitment to examine proposals to remove guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partner or a parent of their child as part of the ongoing work to implement appropriate recommendations from the study of familicide and domestic and family violence death reviews.

These are grave offences. Killing the guardian of a child raises concerns for the safety and welfare of that child. Legislative changes are required to address this troubled issue, and I commend the Minister on moving swiftly in this area. The Bill is fundamentally about ensuring the best interests of the child as a paramount consideration with respect to guardianship. We believe these issues should not be regarded as a matter of private law to be determined between the families concerned but instead should be regarded as a child protection and welfare issue arising in the area of public law.

The legislation is to be known as Valerie's law, in honour of Valerie French, who was killed in June 2019, by her husband James Kilroy. On behalf of Fianna Fáil I thank David French for his advocacy in this area and in honour of his dear sister, Valerie. I know he has been a champion in that area, and the change has come along. He can be proud of that, and I am sure it is an emotional day for him and his family. I thank him for that. Today we are thinking of his family and the painful journey it has had to navigate.

The Bill is about putting children first in situations where one parent has killed or seriously harmed the other parent. It implements recommendations from the study of familicide and domestic and family violence death reviews. It recognises that these cases are not simply private family matters, but issues of child protection and welfare. The Bill ensures that a parent convicted of murder or manslaughter of the other parent of their child does not automatically retain guardianship rights. Instead, Tusla will be required to bring the matter before the District Court, which can restrict or remove those guardianship rights where it is in the child's best interest.

The Bill also applies in certain cases where a parent has seriously injured the other parent, resulting in changes to the child's care arrangements. Throughout the process, the welfare and best interests of the child remain the paramount consideration. Importantly, the legislation strengthens the voice of the child by providing for the appointment of a guardian ad litem and allows family members to participate in proceedings where appropriate.

This Bill represents an important reform that places child welfare at the centre of decision-making, strengthens protections for vulnerable children and responds directly to lessons learned from tragic cases of domestic and family violence.

The Minister is welcome to the Chamber. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I approach the Bill with a great degree of caution and circumspection, as it warrants. I have substantial personal experience in helping children from troubled homes and situations. I recognise the great difficulty and complexity that comes with such issues, especially in how we legislate on them. In this case, there are a number of tensions that merit consideration as it progresses to Committee Stage.

First is the role of the wider family, particularly kinship care. As a State, we should look to models that recognise children are best supported, where possible, within their extended family networks. Grandparents and relatives often provide stability in the most difficult cases. Under this Bill, even where a child is being cared for by grandparents or close relatives, those carers cannot initiate or trigger an application for guardianship. It appears they are entirely dependent on Tusla choosing to act. This means the people most directly responsible for the child's day-to-day welfare will often have no formal role in the legal process governing the child's future. That creates a clear disconnect. I would like to see greater support for kinship care. Law should reflect it not by displacing the State but by recognising that those closest to the child may have a legitimate role in protecting them. There is scope to consider a more balanced model that allows some structured role for family members.

Second is the constitutional dimension. The Bill allows for restriction and, in some cases, removal of guardianship. That is understandable but even in the most extreme cases the individual remains the parent of the child. A criminal conviction does not dissolve that relationship. It does not dissolve the unconditional love that child has for that parent, despite the most heinous crime that parent may have done. Our constitutional framework treats the parent-child relationship with particular weight. We are not simply removing administrative rights; we are intervening in one of the most fundamental legal relationships we recognise. In some cases, circumstances may change, convictions may be overturned and children as they grow may form their own views about contact. The safeguards in the Bill are important but there is room to further ground the legislation in proportionality and to check its constitutionality, ensuring we protect children while still recognising the enduring nature of that relationship.

Third is the role of Tusla. As drafted, Tusla is effectively the gatekeeper. The process begins only if the agency acts. In some cases, it depends on a reasonable cause threshold; in others, it is simply that the agency considers it appropriate. If Tusla does not act, the legislation is never triggered. That is a significant concentration of power and must be viewed in light of current realities. Public confidence in Tusla is not where it needs to be. That is reflected in a number of serious, well-documented cases. We have seen, for example, the murder of the poor Ukrainian boy under Tusla care and the case in Citywest where the ten-year-old victim of the alleged sexual assault had been missing from Tusla supervision for over 24 hours. We have seen repeated judicial criticisms and findings that Tusla failed to comply with hundreds of court directions affecting hundreds of children. A High Court description of its approach to court orders is "wholly unsatisfactory". A District Court found its conduct was "shocking and appalling", including cases where children were left without allocated social workers, despite court orders. These are not abstract concerns; these are findings from our courts about the performance of the body to which the Bill assigns decisive gatekeeping power. This is not about individual social workers either, who often work under immense pressure but it raises a legitimate question: is it appropriate to place such a high level of discretion in a single agency without additional safeguards, balance or alternative pathways? If the intention is that these serious concerns should come before the courts, then we should be cautious about a system where the outcome depends entirely on an internal decision within Tusla. For that reason, I intend to table amendments on Committee Stage to look at these issues. If we are serious about protecting children, the system must be robust not only in principle but in practice. We must ensure no single point of failure can prevent the law operating as intended.

I dtosach báire, cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire, an Teachta O’Callaghan, as ucht teacht isteach arís chun déileáil leis an mBille. Is céim thábhachtach í an Bille seo chun ár ndlíthe a bhaineann le cosaint leanaí a neartú, go háirithe i gcásanna foréigean baile nó foréigean teaghlaigh ina ndúnmharaíonn tuismitheoir amháin an tuismitheoir eile agus na himpleachtaí atá aige seo ar chearta an tuismitheora sin a mhaireann maidir le caomhnóireacht na leanaí a mhaireann.

They had an argument, she went out to buy groceries while he said he had a few drinks. When she came home later he murdered her and then abandoned the children.

These are the words spoken by David French in relation to the brutal murder of his sister, Valerie, by her husband, James Kilroy, in 2019. As the Minister stated, Mr. Kilroy still retains all guardianship rights over his and Valerie's three children. Like the Minister and other Senators, I welcome David and his sister Veronica to the Visitors Gallery. I acknowledge the huge amount of work David and his family have done over the past seven years in campaigning for the law to be changed to improve safeguards and protections for Irish children and families.

I welcome the Bill for the reasons outlined in detail by the Minister. It is an important step forward in the area of child protection and is the legislative follow-up to the commitment made in the programme for Government. It is right the conviction of a person in our courts for the murder of their partner, their fellow parent or the guardian of their children should automatically preclude that person from full guardianship rights of the surviving children. The safeguarding and protection of surviving children must always supersede all other considerations. We welcome the promotion and safeguarding of the best interests of the child through the statutory scheme, which requires the expertise of Tusla - the Child and Family Agency in child protection and welfare, as the Minister outlined. The passage of this legislation will ensure future cases of this nature will be regarded as child protection and welfare issues and not as matters of private law.

On behalf of the Fine Gael group, I commend the Minister, the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration and all involved in the drafting of this legislation, which has our full support.

Next are Senators McCormack and Tully. I understand they are sharing time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sinn Féin welcomes the progression of this legislation. We are eager to work with the Minister to ensure it is as robust as possible.

I want to start by paying tribute to Valerie, a woman who should have been turning 49 this year. As other Senators have mentioned, she was violently killed by her husband in 2019 when she was 41 years old.

Valerie was a mother of three children, a caregiver and a professional therapist. My thoughts are with her children and all of her devastated family as we debate the various Stages of this legislation. I acknowledge Valerie's brother, David French, who is in the Gallery with Veronica today. David has worked tirelessly to highlight that the current legislation allows for people who kill their partners to retain guardianship of shared children. He and his family have fought tirelessly for seven years for change here and in so doing he has done society a huge service. He must be commended for his work, perseverance and determination.

I thank all the campaign and advocacy groups for their amazing work on the ground with victims, survivors and families in the area of domestic abuse. I acknowledge Jason Poole and his family for fighting to create a domestic violence register, another important Bill, known as Jennie's law, coming through the Seanad at the moment. I would also like to mention a group - Victims' Voices - with which Deputy Matt Carthy and I have been working to bring forward the Victims of Sexual Violence Civil Protection Orders Bill. There are so many gaps in legislation which fail to protect mostly women, but not all women and children, in domestic violence situations. I am glad that some of these gaps are now finally being addressed.

The legislation before us today will be known as Valerie's law. I gladly support the Bill but I feel there is still work to be done. The least we can do is make sure that we get it right. A number of issues were raised by David French during pre-legislative scrutiny. As we know, this has already been debated in the Dáil. We will be tabling those amendments again on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister will reconsider some of the Sinn Féin amendments, which were voted against in the Dáil and work with us on them in this Chamber.

Although not necessarily part of this Bill, I would like to take the opportunity to raise another concern that I have relating to the newly established guardian ad litem national service announced yesterday. This will affect children who we are trying to protect in the legislation today. My colleague, Deputy Claire Kerrane, has been raising for months the removal of the guaranteed legal representation for guardians ad litem, GALs, who are the voice of children in child care court proceedings. Nobody to date, including the Minister who is bringing forward this change via amendment today, can say why this is being done. Deputy Kerrane has engaged extensively with the Association of Guardians ad Litem in Ireland, AGALI, the representative organisation for the majority of practising GALs in the State. They are extremely concerned about the removal of guaranteed legal representation.

Picture a courtroom, with a GAL, the voice of the child, who may never have stood in a courtroom in his or her life, a parent with his or her legal representation, and Tusla, with its legal representation. How is it in the best interests of the child if the GAL is without legal representation? This move is not in the best interests of the child at the centre of these court proceedings and I believe that this move will do untold damage. I hope the Minister might be able to answer this for me.

I also welcome this Bill. It is important legislation that will see the partner of a person who murders, kills or seriously injures another parent of his or her child either lose or have his or her guardianship rights restricted, which is absolutely called for. I acknowledge David French for his advocacy on this issue and welcome him and his sister, Veronica, into the Chamber today. There are so many cases like Valerie's where children have been bereaved. He is right; it is abuse of children.

I am concerned about the time between a crime being committed and sentencing, which can sometimes be considerable. It can take up to a year for a case to come to court. Children are already being abused. It is quite common that children will already have been subjected to serious abuse or witnessed abuse within the home for many years, leading up to the murder of their parent. Then, we have a time-lapse between when the crime was carried out and the sentencing. What is the situation there? It is an interim period. Children are grieving for the loss of their parent and if the perpetrator of the crime is out on bail, which will often not be the case because it is such a serious offence, are the children left in the custody of that parent?

We need to better hear the voice of the child. We need to have experts who recognise and can understand children because we know children can be pressured, coerced or even, from fear, say something that is not what they actually feel. I talk to parents all the time who have separated from their partner because of violence, yet there is a court order for access to the children. The children are crying. They do not want to go to see, in most cases, the father. If the mother does not compel them to go and she does not want to because they are fearful and in tears, she is the one in breach of a court order. There needs to be a better understanding of the rights of the child here. If children do not want access to one of their parents because of what they witnessed in the home, then they need to be listened to. Take into account that coercion and pressure can be put on children to say one thing. When we have experts in the field, they should be able to interpret that.

The Bill provides that Tusla be given the responsibility to apply for this order within six months of the conviction but Tusla, as we know, is not properly resourced as it is. It is under pressure to meet demands and people are falling through the cracks. We have children being left for far too long in the care of families where they have been abused or neglected. We have an insufficient number of foster families. We need far more. We have ended up with children being put into precarious care arrangements. We also have a lack of aftercare support, and I have come across several people who have left the foster care situation and are not receiving the support they require to navigate their lives. One in five complaints that the Ombudsman for Children's office received were about Tusla. I am not running down Tusla. I am just saying it is an under-resourced organisation and if we are giving Tusla even more powers and responsibilities to act in these situations, then it needs the resources to enable it to do so within the six months in a timely fashion.

When a person is convicted of the manslaughter of his or her partner but was acting in self-defence, where domestic violence has been prevalent for many years, that should be taken into account. Such parents may have lost their lives defending themselves and their children from a violent situation, so they should not be subjected to this. I acknowledge that John O'Dowd, my colleague in the North, is introducing similar legislation, so we will have an island-led approach to this.

The Labour Party wholeheartedly welcomes this legislation. It is a testament to the bravery and resilience of the French family, who have campaigned so strongly for this absolutely necessary legislation. Their advocacy for Valerie's legacy and for her children has been powerful and moving to see. I thank David and Veronica, who are in the Gallery. We hope to see this Bill being progressed quickly. We also need to make sure that this legislation is watertight. It is vital that we get this right. With this in mind, I want to raise a few questions for the Minister to address.

There have been some reports that Tusla has expressed some concerns about its level of resourcing when it comes to implementing the measures in the Bill. We are all aware of some of the issues that Tusla has faced in recent times and we need to see reassurance that it will be properly equipped to carry out the duties assigned to it under this Bill. There are also constitutional questions about the legislation. Article 42A of Bunreacht na hÉireann allows for the State to take on a guardianship role where a parent has failed in his or her duty towards a child to such an extent that the safety or welfare of the child is likely to be prejudicially affected. The wording of that constitutional test is embedded in this Bill, which is welcome, and we think it is sufficient, but we ask the Minister to assure us that this Bill's provisions are constitutionally watertight and will not be open to any challenge on the ground.

The question of timescales is also important. The Bill's only time limit is a six-month deadline after conviction, during which Tusla can apply for a restriction or removal of guardianship rights. This means the child would likely remain under the guardianship of his or her parent's killer for many months. There are no easy answers here but this needs to be looked at. Is this Bill doing all it can to protect the safety and well-being of the children or child during that interim period?

Finally, we want to raise the issue of guardians ad litem. I know the Minister amended the Bill in the Dáil, but we are still looking for a guarantee that the GALs will have legal representation in all cases.

On the whole, we want to support this important Bill. It definitely will close an existing gap to keep some of our most vulnerable children in some of the most horrific circumstances safer than they currently are under the law. That is why we appreciate the opportunity to speak about it here today. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill.

We in Aontú welcome the Bill and the protections it seeks to put in place for children who have already endured unimaginable trauma. The level of cross-party support for this legislation speaks to the shared goal of putting children’s interests and well-being first. I particularly acknowledge the tireless work of David French, along with that of his sister, Veronica. David’s advocacy following the murder of his sister, Valerie, has helped bring us to this point. No child or relative should have to face the additional burden of a parent retaining guardianship rights after murdering the other parent. David deserves enormous credit for ensuring that these children’s voices are heard.

This debate comes at a time when domestic violence continues to cast a long shadow over our society. A report released today from Women’s Aid shows that disclosures of abuse have risen by a third since last year. It estimates that one in three women in Ireland are abused by their partner. For many women and their children, home is not the safe place it should be. While legislation is important, we must also ask whether we are doing enough to prevent violence in the first place. Has the Minister examined further education programmes within An Garda Síochána and our schools? We need to teach young people about healthy relationships, respect and consent long before problems arise.

I also welcome the Minister’s stated intention to tackle violent pornography. However, I ask him to go further and consider stronger measures to prevent children from accessing pornography altogether. While not all pornography involves threats with knives, strangulation or explicit violence, even more mainstream content contains misogyny and aggression and presents women as less than human. It is not healthy for boys or girls to grow up consuming this material and believing that aggression, humiliation or domination are normal parts of sex or relationships. If we are serious about tackling violence against women and girls, then we must also be serious about addressing the messages young people are absorbing online every day. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts in that regard. I thank him for his work on this Bill. It must be noted.

I thank the Minister for being here today. I echo the support that my colleagues have expressed regarding this legislation. I also welcome our guests here today. Unfortunately, having grown up in Finglas, I am sadly acquainted with the horror of murder within the family unit and the profound violation it is of all that we hold to be the social and ethical contract between people, especially its impact on children, who are the most vulnerable. Given the issues we have on this island with violence against women, gender-based violence and domestic violence, it strikes me that we have a very high rate of incidence. Often, the perpetrator is an intimate partner of the person who is targeted in this way. It reminds me of that expression – I do not mean to be trite or facile – that we are taught to be afraid of the monster under the bed when, in fact, we should be thinking of the monster in the bed beside us.

This Bill is a great step forward and I welcome it. However, I echo what Senator McCormack said because it is a good point. We are taking one step forward but at the same time, we are taking a step backwards. I raise concerns about this new scheme for the appointment of guardians ad litem. The Association of Guardians ad Litem in Ireland, which represents 96% of those guardians, has expressed grave concerns and challenged this new scheme in the High Court. Previously, it is my understanding – the Minister must forgive my layperson understanding of this – that it was the court that appointed a guardian ad litem to the child. Under these changes, it is now proposed, that contrary to the Constitution, the first-named defendant is inserted as a third party in between the previously direct relationship between the court that appoints a guardian ad litem and the guardian ad litem. It provides for a legal structure whereby a guardian ad litem serves at the pleasure of the first-named defendant, rather than the court hearing the application. There are several other grave concerns raised in this case but I do not intent to go through them all. As a layperson, it seems extraordinary and perverse that the Minister for children would appoint a guardian ad litem, rather than the court. In my amateur interpretation of it, I question whether this violates the separation of powers between the State and the Judiciary, or the Executive and the Judiciary. The State, against which a complaint has been made, then has the right to decide whether that plaintiff should have legal representation and who their guardian ad litem should be.

It is also my understanding that this new national guardian service is about to appoint 65 full-time guardians ad litem, many of whom have come straight from Tusla. To me, as a layperson, it seems to be a kind of a power grab or attempt to capture and control the capacity of guardians ad litem to fully and freely advocate for a child, given that they serve at the pleasure of the defendant who can withdraw their guardianship at any given moment. As a layperson, I am disturbed by this. I imagine it is not in the interests of the legal profession either. I am sure there must be some considerable concern about this among the legal profession. If the Minister could address that in any way, I would be appreciative.

I too welcome David and Veronica to the Gallery on what is an important and emotional day for the French family. As someone who comes from west Cork, I am not too far from Leap. The French family has had widespread support from the people of west Cork in their campaign since the brutal murder of their sister. I genuinely thank the Minister for his work on this Bill. I know that David, whom I have met on a number of occasions, expresses deep gratitude for the Minister’s work on this. I acknowledge that.

There is further work to be done in this area, as the Minister knows well, in terms of other legislation. There are other advocates who see other parts of legislation that need to be worked on. The job cannot stop today. I welcome this, however. I pay particular credit to the French family for enduring what they had to do during the criminal process and continuing their campaign to bring today about.

I commend An Garda Síochána on its work in the area of domestic and sexual violence and the progression it has made in recent years. I worked closely with the protective services unit in Wexford dealing with victims and I can see real progression in this regard. The Minister knows that, as an organisation, it has progressed. The French family would have received deep support from the family liaison unit in An Garda Síochána as well, and that must be recognised.

As a State, at times, our organs and institutions can be slow to move but this is good politics today. The Bill has cross-party and broad support. There is further work to be done in other areas, however. I genuinely thank the Minister for his personal work on this and for the help and support he gave to the French family. We will continue our work, as legislators, to ensure that victims of crime and their families are supported and that those who commit crimes are dealt with properly by the organs and institutions of our State.

I thank Senators for their considered contributions. I thank all those Senators who welcomed the Bill, which I think was universally the case. I will take on board the suggestions that were advanced. Senator Gallagher welcomed the Bill. He, like everyone else, echoed the legitimate and genuine recognition that everyone in this House and the other House wants to give to the French family for the work they have done, particularly David French. I wish to start my comments by echoing that.

Senator Keogan said that, like all legislation, we should approach it with a great degree of caution. Any time we are legislating, we have to consider it very carefully. That is why I very much welcome the contributors in Seanad Éireann because we get a cautious response and one that seeks to interrogate the legislation.

One of the points raised by Senator Keogan she felt merited attention was kinship care in circumstances where the legislation does not provide a mechanism for, say, grandparents or another family member to bring the application. This was related to a point another Senator discussed as well. In general, what happens when a tragic event like this occurs - and regrettably it is generally the case a mother has been killed by the father - is somebody needs to look after the children on the evening of the fatality. Usually grandparents, a sister of the deceased or a close relative will step in. If there is no available relative, Tusla will step in and bring an application under the Child Care Act 1991. As such, it is important to recognise there is an immediate response, as is necessary in the tragic circumstances where one guardian is murdered on a particular day and there are children there. Somebody needs to mind the children and there are arrangements put in place for that. Senator Keogan's concern is why there is not a provision in the legislation to allow for a family member, such as a grandparent, to bring an application under this procedure. As she will be aware from the legislation I am introducing, only Tusla can bring the application. I gave careful consideration to that. If we think about it, it is going to mean there could be conflicting interests and conflicting applications being made. You could have, for instance, parents of the deceased bringing an application while at the same time the parents of the convicted person are bringing an application, or siblings from different sides of the family. It could create a very tense situation because families do not, as we all know, think in a homogenous way and family members will have different perspectives on what should happen. Consequently, I took on board the recommendation from the justice committee and accordingly, Tusla will bring the application but family members - and it is a very broad definition of family - can apply to be notice parties to the application. Thus, in the situation Senator Keogan is concerned about, grandparents may apply to the court once Tusla brings the application for the purpose of seeking to ensure they are notice parties and their concerns can be heard.

The Senator also raised the constitutionality of the Bill. Removing guardianship is a very significant step. Notwithstanding that, what is premising this Bill is concern for child's welfare. Protection of the child is the primary focus of this legislation. There are very many measures put in place where custody of children is taken off parents because they simply cannot care for the kids and that is something regarded as constitutional. It is also important to point out it is not interfering with or seeking to interfere with parenthood. The parents remain the same no matter what. This is about guardianship.

Senator Keogan also spoke about Tusla and concern about how it carries out its functions. No statutory body has a more difficult job than Tusla.

I agree.

I know Senator Keogan agrees with that; it is an extremely difficult job. It is the statutory agency responsible for the care of children. There is no other agency it would be appropriate to give this function to. It is also appropriate to place such a high level of discretion in Tusla. One of the arguments raised in the Dáil was Tusla must bring an application within six months if it is satisfied it is in the best interests of the child. That second hurdle will be easily overcome. Obviously there is nothing to stop family members from writing to Tusla or asking it to bring an application but it is better to have the application process controlled by one statutory agency as opposed to family members having the burden of bringing it forward.

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Seanadóir Kelleher freisin. Bhí mé ag éisteacht go cúramach lena óráid. He spoke about the importance of child protection being at the heart of this.

I also listened to Senators McCormack and Tully. Senator McCormack referred to very many gaps in legislation. There are, but I am trying to address them. It is important also in these Houses that we listen to other Members and if they bring forward proposals I think are good I will try to adopt them or else they can issued by way of a Private Members' Bill. I think Senator McCormack also referred to the issue of the application process being brought by Tusla and I answered that a few moments ago.

Senator Tully asked what happens in the time between a crime being committed and sentencing. I sort of answered that a few moments ago in response to Senator Keogan. Obviously measures have to be put in place immediately. You cannot just wait for a person to be convicted. What happens in that interim period is the day a mother is killed, somebody has to step in to the position of minding the children, especially if it is the case the father has been arrested and remanded in custody. The child care order issue between Tusla and the family can also be dealt with in the unusual circumstances of a guardian being remanded on bail if they are charged with murder. The Senator also spoke about hearing the voice of the child. Section 12F of the legislation provides a mechanism for the voice of the child to be heard. I am also bringing forward a policy proposal to ensure the voice of the child is properly heard in all forms of proceeding. Senator Tully asked about what happens in circumstances where somebody is convicted of manslaughter but it was self-defence. That was in an amendment put forward by Deputy Carthy in the Dáil. The better way to deal with that is how it is dealt with in the legislation at present, that is, Tusla decides to bring the application but it must bring it if it is for the benefit of the protection of the child. Let us take the example of a mother who in self-defence committed a criminal act. In such circumstances Tusla could decide not to bring the application. There are issues with the amendment put forward by Sinn Féin in the Dáil that would make it impossible to navigate in terms of how it is presented. If you are convicted of manslaughter this arises but generally if it is self-defence you get acquitted. Self-defence is a defence and people are acquitted, so it is not going to arise if somebody is acquitted but if somebody is convicted of manslaughter it will have to be considered.

I thank Senator Cosgrove for her support. She asked me whether the Bill's provisions are constitutionally watertight and I believe they are. She asked me if they will not be subject to challenge but I cannot guarantee that. People are entitled to challenge legislation and when you think of the powers we are taking away from people here - the right to guardianship is a significant statutory and moral responsibility people have - I suspect it will be challenged. However, we should not shy away from introducing legislation just because people may challenge it in future. I believe it will withstand that challenge.

I thank Senator O'Reilly for her comments. I agree with what she was saying about violent pornography. I spoke about that this morning at the Women's Aid report launch. It is having a very distorting impact on the development of young people's sexuality and we need to ensure people realise relationships should be healthy relationships.

I hear what Senator Clonan said as well and echo what is contained in the Women's Aid report. It recognises the overwhelming majority of violence done to women is done by people they are in a relationship with and that while stranger violence can happen, violence is typically inflicted on women by those they are or were in a relationship with.

I thank Senator O'Donovan for his contribution as well. He mentioned west Cork and I am conscious one of the big stains on the character of justice in the country is the fact no-one has ever been brought to justice for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier. As the Minister for justice that is embarrassing to me, as I am aware it is to people in this House. I hope that heinous crime can be resolved.

As a final point, I am not trying to shy away from this but I am not the Minister for children, even though the legislation I am bringing forward is to do with the Guardianship of Infants Act. I am informed in terms of the issues about legal representation. Where the guardian ad litem needs legal representation, this will be provided. However, it must be acknowledged legal representation is not always required by the guardian ad litem. I do not want to start speaking on areas of policy that are not my responsibility. The Minister, Deputy Foley, has spoken on this before and with the permission of the Seanad I will evade that question and let her deal with it.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome this opportunity to introduce the Criminal Justice (International cooperation on Electronic Evidence and Other Matters) Bill. It recently passed all stages in the Dáil.

Electronic evidence is central to almost every modern criminal investigation. Data now moves rapidly across the globe. As a consequence, the investigation of crime in one member state is often dependent on evidence located in another member state. Electronic data is inherently volatile. It is easily deleted, altered or moved. Of course, the emergence of cloud computing, where the exact physical location of data is transitory and dynamic, brings further jurisdictional difficulties. Law enforcement has increasingly become reliant on voluntary co-operation with service providers. However, this approach lacks enforcement power, does not adequately protect fundamental rights and leaves it up to service providers to determine the legitimacy of requests.

The Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment to implement the EU e-evidence package. That package provides a clear, legally certain and efficient process for law enforcement in one member state to directly request electronic evidence from service providers established in another member state, while protecting fundamental rights. Ireland's role is central to the implementation of the e-evidence package. It is expected that up to 600 service providers could designate their “addressee” in the State. To date, Department officials have identified over 400 service providers subject to the package. It is important legislation from Ireland’s perspective.

The EU e-evidence package is comprised of two separate but interdependent legislative instruments: the e-evidence regulation and the e-evidence directive. The regulation, which the Oireachtas agreed to opt into in 2018, has direct effect, while the directive is an internal market instrument that is binding on Ireland. The regulation imposes an obligation upon service providers to preserve or produce electronic evidence at the request of a judicial authority of another member state, imposing a legal obligation upon them to do so. The directive requires that member states ensure service providers offering services in the EU designate an addressee to process incoming orders. Both the regulation and the directive require that penalty provisions be put in place to address issues of non-compliance as and when they arise.

Unfortunately, and notwithstanding the significant efforts of both my officials and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, the transposition deadline for the e-evidence directive of 18 February 2026 could not be met. It is, therefore, important to enact this and transpose the directive as soon as possible. The e-evidence regulation applies from 18 August next.

The Bill comprises five Parts and a Schedule. Part 1 is comprised of standard provisions concerning the Short Title, commencement and expenses, and the definition of key words. It also addresses matters relating to the designation of the director as the competent authority under Article 12(1)(b) of the terrorist regulation. Section 1 of the Bill provides for the Short Title and commencement. Section 2 provides for the definition of terms. Section 3 is a standard provision regarding expenses. Section 4 provides for the designation of the director of criminal justice international co-operation as the competent authority for the purposes of Article 12(1)(b) of the terrorist content regulation. Section 5 is a necessary companion to section 4. Section 6 provides for the service of notices or other documents under this Bill, including by electronic means. Section 7 is a standard provision relating to regulations.

Part 2 of the Bill comprises sections 8 to 22, inclusive. Section 8 provides for the establishment of oifig an stiúrthóra um chomhar idirnáisiúnta ceartais choiriúil, or the office of director of criminal justice international co-operation. The holder of this office shall be known as the director of criminal justice international co-operation, and is referred to in the Bill as “the Director.” Section 8 also provides that the Schedule to the Bill shall have effect in relation to the director. The Schedule details the provisions applicable to the director, providing that the director will be a corporation sole with perpetual succession and official seal, and the power to sue and be sued.

Section 9 provides for the appointment of the director, while section 10 sets out the circumstances in which a person is not eligible or is disqualified. Section 11 is a standard provision providing that a person cannot simultaneously hold office as both the director and as an elected Member of the Oireachtas, the European Parliament or a local authority. Section 12 provides for the resignation and removal of the director. The appointment of members of staff is provided for in section 13, while section 14 provides for the appointment by the director of a deputy director. Section 15 provides that the director may engage consultants. Section 16 provides that the director will be indemnified against legal actions. Section 17 outlines the various functions of the director. Section 18 is a standard provision providing for the delegation of functions. Section 19 provides that the director may enter into an information sharing arrangement. Section 20 provides that the director shall submit an annual report. Section 21 sets out the statistical information that the director must collect. Section 22 provides that the director may issue guidance notes.

Part 3, comprising sections 23 and 24, provides for the designation of the director as the enforcement authority and central authority, respectively, for the purposes of the e-evidence regulation.

Part 4, comprising sections 25 to 30, provides for the designation of the director as the central authority for the e-evidence directive. Section 25 is a standard provision providing for definitions. Section 26 designates the director as the central authority. Section 27 provides that service providers must designate a designated establishment or a legal representative for the receipt of, compliance with and enforcement of decisions. Section 28 acts as a companion provision. Section 29 provides that service providers must notify the director of the addresses and contact details of their designated establishments. Section 30 provides that service providers and their designated establishments or legal representatives shall be jointly and severally liable.

Part 5 comprises sections 31 to 70. Section 31 provides for the definition of terms used in Part 5 of the Bill. Section 32 is a standard provision intended to protect legal privilege. Section 33 creates an offence if certain persons, including staff, make an unauthorised disclosure. Section 34 creates an offence of giving false information. Section 35 provides for the appointment of authorised officers, while section 36 provides for the powers of those officers. Section 37 provides that a judge of the District Court may issue a search warrant. Section 38 provides that the director may request that a service provider provide a compliance report to enable the director to confirm that the service provider is complying. Section 39 provides that the director may either enter into an agreement with the service provider in respect of an alleged contravention or cause a directed investigation to start. Section 40 provides that the director may enter into a written agreement with a service provider. Section 41 provides for definitions of terms used in Chapter 4. Section 42 provides that the director may direct an authorised officer to undertake a directed investigation. Section 43 provides that an authorised officer shall submit a copy of a completed report to the director. Section 44 sets out the actions that may be taken by the director.

Section 45 provides for the definition of terms used in Chapter 5 of Part 5. Section 46 provides that, for the purpose of an undertaking, the chief adjudication officer shall assign an adjudication officer to conduct the adjudication. Section 47 provides that service providers shall not be liable to be penalised twice. Section 48 sets out the actions an adjudication officer shall take. Section 49 provides that an adjudication officer shall make a decision on the balance of probabilities. Section 50 sets out that the maximum financial penalty that can be imposed on a service provider can be no greater than 2% of the total world annual turnover of the service provider in the preceding financial year. Section 51 provides that an adjudication officer must send the director and the service provider concerned a written notice of decision to impose a penalty. Section 52 sets out the circumstances in which a decision of a financial penalty takes effect. Section 53 provides that a service provider may appeal. Section 54 provides that, where no appeal is made, the director shall make an application in a summary manner to the Circuit Court, and section 55 sets out procedural and other matters concerning that.

Section 56 provides that an adjudication officer may, before making a decision as to a contravention or the imposition of a financial penalty under section 49, refer a question of law to the High Court. Section 57 provides that an adjudication officer may award the costs of proceedings against the service provider or director. Section 58 provides that the Minister may make regulations relating to the conduct of proceedings. Section 59 provides that a payment made by a service provider goes to the Exchequer. Section 60 sets out the circumstances in which a person is not eligible for appointment or disqualified from holding office as an adjudication officer. Section 61 provides that a person cannot also be a Member of the Oireachtas or the local authority. Section 62 provides for the nomination by the director of persons for appointment as adjudication officers. Section 63 provides for the appointment by the Minister of adjudication officers. Section 64 provides that an adjudication officer is independent.

Section 65 provides that the Minister can make regulations. Section 66 provides that the director may require staff to assist adjudication officers. Section 67 provides that summary proceedings for an offence may be brought and prosecuted by the director. Section 68 provides that summary proceedings for an offence under this Bill may be instituted at any time within two years. Section 69 provides for liability for a body corporate. Section 70 provides that, where a person is convicted of an offence, the court shall order the person to pay the director any costs incurred.

The provisions of the Bill have been carefully drafted. It is important to enhance Ireland's position as a European hub for digital regulation and as a trusted partner in international justice. Data protection rules and principles will apply to the mechanism of European production orders. The regulation reiterates the requirement of necessity and proportionality, setting out the key safeguards in this area. I look forward to listening to Senators' contributions.

On behalf of my party, I welcome and support this Bill, which will establish a new office of director of criminal justice international co-operation to allow Ireland to meet the requirement of the EU e-evidence package. This package will make it faster and easier for law enforcement and judicial authorities across the EU to obtain electronic evidence from service providers as part of criminal investigations. The establishment of the office of director of criminal justice international co-operation will provide a cohesive approach to digital regulation in the criminal justice space. It will centralise the necessary skills and expertise, providing a single point of contact for cross-border judicial co-operation on e-evidence and ensuring a streamlined regulatory framework. It will also enhance Ireland's ability to ensure effective access to digital evidence in tracking serious crime.

The use of online services to facilitate and perpetuate criminal activity does not respect geographical borders, as we all know. While data flows globally, law enforcement authorities across Europe are often in need of foreign-held evidence for domestic cases, including data held by service providers in this jurisdiction. The existing means of legal co-operation between countries can be slow and complex. As a result, law enforcement and judicial authorities often experience difficulties in accessing electronic evidence relevant to an investigation, rendering prosecutions ineffective. It is to address these deficiencies that the Minister is introducing this Bill, and I welcome that.

The Bill is designed to implement the EU e-evidence package in Ireland and to ensure that the State is prepared for the application of the EU e-evidence regulation from 18 August next. The EU e-evidence package introduces a new framework that allows law enforcement and judicial authorities in one EU member state to obtain electronic evidence directly from service providers located in another member state. It does this through two new legal instruments, European production orders, which require the production of electronic evidence, and European participation orders, which require data to be preserved for future investigations. The objective is to make access to electronic evidence faster and more effective. Under the new system, service providers will generally be required to respond within ten days or within eight hours in emergency situations.

This Bill provides for the establishment of the office of the director of criminal justice international co-operation and the appointment of a director to oversee Ireland's implementation of the e-evidence framework. The director will be responsible for monitoring compliance, enforcing obligations on service providers and administrating penalties where necessary. This Bill will require service providers operating within the scope of the legislation to designate and addressee to receive and respond to electronic evidence orders. This is intended to ensure that authorities have a clear point of contact and that the providers can comply effectively with their obligations. In addition, the Bill assigns to the director responsibility for the scrutiny of certain cross-border removal orders under EU terrorist content online regulations, ensuring that such orders comply with EU law and the fundamental right to protection.

Implementation of the e-evidence package is important for Ireland's criminal justice system and for its position as a major European centre for technology and digital regulation. It is anticipated that a significant number of service providers will fall within the scope of this framework and that large volumes of electronic evidence requests will be processed through Ireland each year.

Ireland is obliged to implement both the directive and the regulations. Timely enactment of this legislation is necessary to fulfil those obligations and support effective cross-border co-operation in criminal investigations. I look forward to this legislation passing through the Oireachtas.

Thar ceann Fhine Gael, cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille um Cheartas Coiriúil (Comhar Idirnáisiúnta maidir le Fianaise Leictreonach agus Nithe Eile), 2026. Mar atá léirithe ag an Aire, is céim dhualgais í seo chun Treoir 2023/1544 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa a chur i bhfeidhm. As has been referenced by both the Minister and Senator Gallagher, the enactment of this Bill will fulfil the commitment made in the programme for Government to implement the e-evidence package in line with Directive 2023/1544. One of the most important provisions of the Bill as outlined by the Minister is the establishment of the office of the director of criminal justice international co-operation and the appointment of the director of criminal justice international co-operation. This is another example of international co-operation in line with EU directives to strengthen the laws and protections that apply in Ireland. On behalf of the Fine Gael Group, I welcome the Bill.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the EU e-evidence package and this legislation, which seeks to transpose the package into Irish law. We support the basic tenets of the Bill, which seeks to make cross-border requests for electronic evidence such as social media posts and emails more efficient. We live in an increasingly globalised and digitalised world. As we know on this island, crime does not respect borders. I understand the necessity of this type of legislation. I support the sharing of e-evidence in the appropriate circumstances, while also respecting people's right to privacy.

There is a number of difficulties with this Bill, one of which has arisen from the manner in which the Minister is seeking to enact it. The rushed nature of the Bill's passage through the Dáil leaves a lot to be desired. The deadline for Dáil Committee Stage amendments was prior to the Bill's Second Stage Reading. That is fairly bad practice and completely undermines the democratic scrutiny function of the Oireachtas. The Minister stated that the date for transposition was 18 February. Despite the significant efforts of his officials and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the deadline could not be met. We are not sure what the exact fault or hold-up was in that regard. We are now faced with the Bill be steamrolled through the Oireachtas in order to try and meet the relevant deadlines. Some explanation of that would be welcome.

There are a number of other concerns. It is significant legislation. The Department of justice has acknowledged that there is no existing criminal justice body equipped to deal with the tasks required by the e-evidence package. Thus, a new office for international co-operation must be established. As the Minister indicated, Ireland is a significant European headquarters for a considerable number of social media platforms, digital companies and regulatory functions. Clearly, he has estimated that, as a consequence of this, the number of requests made to Ireland to deal with this could be in the hundreds of thousands annually.

There are no details provided, apart from the office set-up costs in relation to the office or its ongoing functions beyond the €2.8 million identified. There are projections of up to 150 staff required for that. The Minister has quite rightly said that this will enhance Ireland's reputation, but only if we have sufficient resources to carry out the functions that are being demanded of us. When Department officials appeared before the committee, they were completely unable to outline what the costs of dealing with the majority of requests may come to. No clarity was provided. That is further compounded by indications from Department officials that it is intended that additional roles will be ascribed to the office such as in European investigation orders. There is no real clarity in relation to that.

The Bill will allow foreign authorities to obtain identifying data from Irish-based companies at speed. As the Minister said, Ireland could be processing hundreds of thousands of requests every year. Will he outline what the impact will be on the Garda and the courts? Will they require additional resources, given that we will be the focus of most of the activities relating to this in Europe? While the Government indicated that the impact on the Courts Service, which is already under significant pressure, in the context of dealing with excessive backlogs will be minimal, in reality, the Courts Service has been far more circumspect in its analysis of what this might mean for it. As stated, the service is already stretched beyond capacity.

Additional clarity is also required on safeguards in place to protect citizens' rights. Digital Rights Ireland has described the e-evidence package as having minimal fundamental rights safeguards. Will the Minister outline the safeguards which exist in relation to data requests from member states which have lower democratic protections than those in operation here?

In respect of small businesses, we are concerned about the administrative burden this legislation may introduce. While we welcome the creation of the decentralised IT system to facilitate engagement and reporting by SMEs, will the Minister clarify the status of this and if it will be live by the August compliance deadline?

The proposed legislation is rushed with many questions remaining in terms of key provisions, particularly in terms of sovereignty, safeguards and rule of law and, as such, we will be unable to support the Bill at this Stage.

I thank Senators for their contributions, which I have listened to carefully.

Senator Gallagher spoke about how this legislation is very important for Ireland’s reputation and the position we have as a major European centre for the tech sector. That is correct and it is important that we try to transpose the directive as soon as possible. As we know, the regulation comes into effect from the middle of August, so it is important for Ireland’s reputation. When you look at it objectively, very many other countries in the European Union would give a huge amount to be in Ireland’s position of attracting very large multinational tech companies to the country. We have them here, which is something we should, and I know we do, value. It is something that generates challenges but is a huge advantage for the country, the economy and the taxes we generate from it as well as the services we can support through the taxation that comes with it.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir Kelleher arís as a óráid. Bhí mé ag éisteacht go cúramach.

Senator Murphy also raised a number of points. It is fair to say we are under pressure here with the timeline. There is a legitimate criticism to what he said, that it should have been enacted sooner. He asked why it is being rushed. Part of the reason is because my priority has been other domestic legislation, much of which we saw earlier such as the guardianship of infants legislation or the domestic register of judgements legislation. I will not claim all responsibility for the delay but it is important that we get it enacted. I agree with the Senator that it would be preferable that, when it comes to the transposition of directives, we try to transpose them in a more timely and expedient fashion.

Senator Murphy mentioned that the number of requests to Ireland could be very high. They could be, and the reason for that is because we have so many large tech companies here. The purpose of this is for other member states to request e-evidence, evidence that is relevant to criminal offences in their jurisdiction. Obviously, a lot of tech companies that list their address as Ireland will be the entities that will be subject to those requests and they will come to the new statutory office we are setting up.

Senator Murphy also asked about resources in respect of it. The set-up costs are around €2.8 million, but we believe, in terms of what we are facing from the outset, that we will have enough resources to deal with it. If we need further resources, we are fortunate to be in a financial position where we can devote further resources to it, but we believe the calculation that is given to it at present is sufficient. Senator Murphy is correct in noting there will also be additional roles given to the new statutory agency in respect of European investigation orders.

Senator Murphy also inquired about what will be the impact on the workload on the courts. I am ensuring the courts are resourced fully to administer justice efficiently and effectively. This year saw funding increase by 8% to €216 million. The judges are well resourced. I am introducing further judicial posts, so I believe there will be sufficient judicial resources to deal with this, and that is also the case with An Garda Síochána. However, it is true to say when you are setting up a new statutory entity and it will be reliant on requests coming from other countries, there will be a certain amount of uncertainty as to the level of workload. It is something that will have to be kept under constant review.

Senator Murphy raised the issue of the protection of fundamental rights. I am satisfied fundamental rights are protected in respect of this. There has to be reciprocity in terms of criminality. It is not like we can receive a request for something that is not a crime in Ireland. When you look at all European Union directives and regulations, we will all still be subject to GDPR and the fundamental rights set out in the charter, so I am satisfied that fundamental rights will be protected.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we go to the next item of business, I welcome William C Davis, Professor of History and director of Virginia Tech civil war institute as well as John Dooley and his wife, Lisa. John was vice president of Virginia Tech and CEO of the Virginia Tech Foundation. He is since retired but I am sure it is an active retirement. I also welcome Greg and Susan Beato, Pete D’Amore, Jeanne Stosser and Elizabeth McClanahan. I welcome them and thank them for being in Seanad Éireann. I think William is the author of nearly 20 books on the civil war. I congratulate him. That is a lot of knowledge gathered onto paper, which is more important now than ever.

I move:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 201(2), in relation to the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026, it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole Seanad that the Committee has the power to make amendments to the Bill which are not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill, for the purpose of:

(i) amending the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 to ensure that the general prohibition on the possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus without a licence from the Commission for Communications Regulation does not apply to a radio frequency jammer kept by An Garda Síochána for the purpose of working or using it to interfere with an unmanned aircraft system where it is reasonably believed to be necessary to carry out its policing and security function under the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024;

(ii) further amending the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 to oblige An Garda Síochána and the Commission for Communications Regulation to agree a memorandum of understanding to support the sharing of information on the use of radio frequency jammers for counter- unmanned aircraft systems purposes;

(iii) further amending the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 to ensure that offences included in the Act to prohibit interference with wireless telegraphy apparatus do not apply to the use of a radio frequency jammer kept by An Garda Síochána for the purpose of working or using it to interfere with an unmanned aircraft system where it is reasonably believed to be necessary to carry out its policing and security function under the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024;

and to change the long title to reflect the content of the Bill; and to make other consequential amendments required to take account of such amendments.

I thank the Seanad for welcoming me to the Seanad this afternoon to debate the proposed amendments to the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026. I appreciate the engagement that Senators have had with the Bill to date, as evidenced by the amendments which various Senators have put forward, and I look forward to constructive discussion on those amendments along with those I am moving on behalf of the Government.

Before we debate the proposed amendments, with the Cathaoirleach's permission, I wish to briefly signal a number of other amendments which are currently at an advanced stage of drafting in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel which I intend to bring forward on Report Stage. These include the insertion of a new Part into the Bill to provide an enabling basis for remote hearings and the use of electronic documents in criminal proceedings and international co-operation proceedings, and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020, and the Criminal Justice (Perjury and Related Offences) Act 2021.

They also include the insertion of a new Part into the Bill to extend the State’s passenger name record data regime to intra-EU flights to align the law in this area with a recent judgement of the CJEU and to provide for the designation of an independent authority to approve the disclosure of PNR data held by the Irish passenger information unit and to revoke the European Union (Passenger Name Record Data) Regulations 2018.

I will also introduce an amendment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984 to provide a statutory basis for the admissibility as certificate evidence in criminal proceedings of the results of presumptive drug tests administered by members of the Garda and a consequential amendment to the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014.

I will introduce an amendment to the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act to empower members of the Garda to require a person to remove a face covering in particular circumstances where the person is wearing a face covering to evade liability or identification for the purpose of having committed a criminal offence and an amendment of section 14 of the Bill which provides for commencement of the Bill to enable certain provisions to commence on enactment rather than by ministerial order.

As mentioned previously in the Dáil, I have been giving consideration to commencement. I intend to amend section 1(4) to enable further provisions in the Bill to come into operation on enactment rather than by order.

I will introduce an amendment to replace the current section 6, which amends section 67 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936, to address an issue with the provision whereby it does not take account of certain previous amendments to section 67 of the Act. I will also introduce an amendment to replace the current section 17, which amends the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, to provide that where a person is convicted of any indictable offence, character evidence for sentencing purposes must be given on oath or by affidavit. This is to address a number of drafting issues with the current provision.

I will introduce an amendment to remove section 44, which provides that more than one DNA profile may be generated in relation to missing persons, unknown persons and unknown deceased persons. I have been advised that section 44 is unnecessary because it is permissible to generate more than one profile in such cases without explicit provision being made. I will also introduce an amendment to section 69, which adds the Courts Service to schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, to add the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, to the schedule, thereby making it a specified body for the purposes of sections 262 to 270, inclusive. I also propose to add An Garda Síochána, which at present is a specified body but only in relation to staff. I propose to remove that reference being restricted to staff.

There are a number of technical amendments to Part 15, which provides for the disregard scheme that we discussed previously, to address a procedural lacuna arising in the context of the provisions of sections 60 and 61, which relate to the revoking of a disregard.

As stated on Second Stage on Thursday of last week, we welcome the provisions of the Bill. The Bill has the wholehearted support of our group. There were some very interesting discussions in the Chamber last week. I again commend the Minister on his continued co-operation and engagement.

Will we be going straight to the Bill subsequent to this?

Yes.

To clarify, these are additional Committee Stage amendments that are being added after the piece. We have not had sight of them before now. Can I confirm that we will have Report Stage of this legislation at a later date and that there will be no guillotine applied in respect of the Report Stage debate? Of course, we have not had the opportunity to look at and respond to these amendments, which we are only hearing about now.

That is a matter for the Leader to deal with in the context of the Order of Business of the day. I do not think anyone here can-----

When there is a large volume of legislation coming from the same Department and when changes are coming at such short notice, it is more difficult to have the proper engagement.

As no other Senators are offering, I call the Minister to conclude. Is he happy?

I have nothing further to add.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, and 10 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 9, to delete lines 15 to 18.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive - are being considered together because they relate to the deletion of all sections of the Bill that provide for the introduction of the use of incapacitant spray, or pepper spray, by members of the Irish Prison Service, IPS. In that context, I take this opportunity to indicate our opposition to section 5. We believe this is a retrograde and counterproductive step that is likely to negatively impact relations between prison staff and those in custody in Irish prisons, destabilising and undermining relationships that rely on trust and harmony. Ireland is one of a handful of European countries where prison officers are not currently equipped with these sprays, or, indeed, with other weapons, relying instead on their capacity to manage and de-escalate conflict without the use of force or violence. This is much like the majority of gardaí not being equipped with weapons or pepper spray. Ireland's model of policing is by consent, and we should strive to protect that.

While the assumed intention behind the introduction of incapacitant sprays is to promote greater safety in our prisons, it is clear from examining the findings in other jurisdictions that the introduction does not positively impact levels of violence in prisons and, in actual fact, can have the opposite effect. Looking to the UK, studies have demonstrated that the disproportionate use of PAVA, a type of incapacitant spray, against minority communities in prisons in the UK, including black, Muslim and disabled prisoners, has the effect of normalising the use of violence against particular groups within the prison environment. Being within the prison environment negatively impacts the health and well-being of those in custody, especially when the environment is as chronically overcrowded to the extent that the Irish prisons are at the moment. Adding chemical irritants into mix is a cause for grave concern, given that the chemical irritants can lead to severe health consequences, including death. It is essential to consider the vulnerability of specific individuals to these chemicals especially in enclosed and overcrowded spaces.

The future prison capacity working group report, published in July last year, highlighted compromised safety and security in Irish prisons, primarily as a result of chronic overcrowding. Irish prisons are severely overcrowded, routinely operating at 120%, or higher, of the network's capacity. Significant numbers of people in custody are sleeping on cell floors. This is in contravention of both IPS and Council of Europe committee for the prevention of torture safe standards and best practice.

Looking again at the UK, research undertaken in England and Wales by the Ministry of Justice has highlighted the link between overcrowding and a rise in prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, with prisoners in overcrowded cells being 19% more likely to be involved in an assault. The most recent data on the rates of violent incidents and assaults released by the IPS highlights notable fluctuations during 2023 and 2024. The data demonstrate that there has been a reported 3% decrease in direct physical assaults by prisoners on prison staff, while aggressive and threatening incidents have fallen by 8%. Physical interventions in prisons, where staff must intervene physically, are down by 25%. These figures suggest some improvement in the safety of the prison environment for staff.

There has been a concerning 31% increase in the number of direct physical assaults by prisoners on other prisoners over the same period, which is a significant rise. Upon closer examination of the data, it becomes evident that the trends are firmly established in Irish prisons. Figures released by the IPS in 2023 indicated a 14% reduction in the number of physical assaults by prisoners on staff between 2022 and 2023 but, conversely, a significant rise in prisoner-on-prisoner assaults was observed, with an increase of 74%.

The 31% increase in prison-on-prisoner assaults in Ireland in 2024 further underscores the correlation between overcrowding and rising violence in the Irish context. How incapacitant sprays will positively interrupt this trend is entirely unclear. Indeed, even the Department of justice in its own policy paper acknowledges the fact that international evidence demonstrates that the introduction of incapacitant sprays in custodial sentences is likely to cause an increase in the number of use-of-force events in Irish prisons.

In this context, we fundamentally disagree with the introduction of incapacitant sprays in custodial settings and are therefore seeking the outright deletion of the relevant sections, as was sought by the justice committee. It is important. I regard the Minister as quite a logical man. Overcrowding is the reason we may see an increase in prisoner-on-prisoner violence. The response is to introduce another layer of violence, that is, incapacitant sprays, into the mix rather than reducing the number of people who are in prison.

When we reduce the number of prisoners in prison settings, violence decreases. The most logical thing to do would be to ensure the large number of people currently in prisons for minor convictions - up to 70% of prisoners are sent to prison for minor convictions - would not be in prison for those convictions. Can the House imagine that we only have 30% of prison space left for more serious crimes? If we freed up the rest of the space, we would not be talking about introducing incapacitant sprays or weapons or anything like that which can be used. We would be looking at more positive interventions.

Rather than thinking of it as a safety concern and deciding that because of overcrowding or prisoner-on-prisoner violence we need incapacitant sprays, I ask the Minister to consider that the answer is to reduce the number of people in prisons so that the relationship between prison officers and prisoners can be further enhanced. The success of an institution like a prison is based on how you build relationships; it is relationship-based. When there is a potential threat between a prison officer and a person incarcerated in prison, the idea that somebody could reach for incapacitant spray interrupts the potential relationships that could be built between prison officers and those in prison. We could do things that would have a much longer and more sustainable impact on how people and prison officers experience their time in prison, and on how people integrate back into society. If you have endured incapacitant spray within prison, you will have even less trust for authority than you had when you went in.

I ask the Minister to consider whether these are logical, evidence-based responses to the issues of overcrowding and over-use of short sentences within the Irish prison system.

Is amendment No. 10 grouped with amendments Nos. 1 to 3?

Yes. Does the Senator wish to speak on amendment No. 10?

Yes. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this amendment. I agree with Senator Ruane. My amendment is pretty straightforward. It seeks to ensure that the Minister will, within 12 months of the commencement of this legislation, report to the Houses of the Oireachtas on "the operation [and impact] of the provisions relating to ... incapacitant spray" in prisons. Prison officers have an extremely difficult job and they must have the ability to protect themselves. When I raised this issue on Second Stage, the Minister said that he wants to protect prison officers. Nobody disputes that they must have that protection. However, I am concerned this measure risks treating the symptom rather than addressing the underlying problem.

We know our prisons are under enormous pressure. We have heard recent reports of more than 500 prisoners sleeping on mattresses on floors. The Prison Officers Association has described the situation as a "national scandal", and has warned that overcrowding is contributing to increased violence. If you add more violence to violence, are you increasing that risk? Does violence breed more violence, intimidation and tension within prisons? Is it wise to introduce incapacitant spray in this context? It seems more like putting a band-aid on the issue instead of addressing the root cause of these incidents.

Under budget 2026, the Minister announced €495 million for prison infrastructure, including a new prison in Cork, as well as additional accommodation in Wheatfield, Midlands, Castlerea, Mountjoy, Cloverhill, Portlaoise, Limerick and Dóchas prisons, as well as the commencement of construction at Thornton Hall. I would welcome an update from the Minister on these projects and how they are progressing, as well as details of when the additional capacity will come on stream.

I note the provisions in section 15 encouraging greater consideration of community service orders. While community service can be appropriate and beneficial in many cases, particularly in supporting rehabilitation, custodial sentences remain necessary for serious and violent offences. The amendment simply asks that we measure the impact of this legislation and determine whether it genuinely improves the functioning and safety of our prison services.

I thank Senators for the amendments they put down on Committee Stage, for which I am here today and back again tomorrow. I thank Senator Ruane for her amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which seek to amend section 4 of the Bill by deleting the amendments I am proposing to the Firearms Act, which refer to the use and capacity of the Irish prison service to have incapacitant spray.

At the outset, I acknowledge that Senator Ruane has consistently displayed an interest in penal matters and has very good knowledge of the pressures our prisons are under. She has worked very well in the area of penal reform. Since I became Minister, I have visited every prison in the country, except the Midlands Prison. I have visited 12 of the 13 prisons, and I am going to go back to start visiting them again. Every time I go, I meet the staff and the governors and I always make sure I also meet the prisoners. As the Senator knows, there is a lot of good work going on in Irish prisons at present. It is not a simple narrative because, unquestionably, there is overcrowding in Irish prisons. I am responsible for ending that and seeking to reduce it. Last year, I got authority from the Government to invest up to €500 million in further prison construction. I do not believe all our solutions involve building more prisons. However, when you look at how our population has risen in the last ten to 15 years, it is clear that our prison capacity has not increased correspondingly. The main reason we have overcrowding today is because we never increased capacity. Work being done on estates by the Irish Prison Service is done very quickly and professionally. Recently, I went to Castlerea where I saw the new buildings that have already been built in the grove with the money I got authority for in May 2025. It is a small development but it has been constructed within one year. There will be further construction starting in Cloverhill soon. I believe we will see an increase in the prison estate and its capacity. That is essential to ensure prisoners are not exposed to overcrowding.

The amendments that have been put down by Senator Ruane - amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 - seek to stop the legislation that I am introducing from enabling prison officers to have incapacitant spray. I am not going to agree to the amendments because I believe it is necessary and appropriate that prison officers should have access to mechanisms for defending themselves. I say that notwithstanding the fact that when I have gone to all the prisons, one of the things that does not surprise me but is very noticeable is the very good relationship that exists between prisoners and prison officers. People who have not been into prisons may be surprised by that, but there is an excellent relationship that is predominantly one of trust and engagement between prisoners, prison officers and prison staff. We do not see many attacks on prison officers by prisoners. Regrettably, since I have become Minister, there have been attacks upon them. It is essential that prison officers are properly equipped to protect themselves, their colleagues and, of course, the prisoners in their care from serious and potentially lethal violence. To that end, I believe it is necessary for prison officers to be able to use incapacitant sprays in appropriate circumstances where the situation may demand it. It does not mean that once this law is enacted, or if this law is enacted, prison officers will start going around using incapacitant spray with reckless abandon.

It is important to point out that Ireland is one of a tiny number of European states whose prison officers are not currently allowed to use this protection in any circumstances.

The vast majority of other European jurisdictions have long since determined incapacitant spray to be an essential item in this regard. The evidence shows that such sprays do not cause long-term health effects and that, used appropriately, they can prevent or minimise incidents of serious prison violence and indeed reduce the need for more forceful and potentially injurious physical interventions by prison officers. Because of the professionalism of Irish prison officers, if this law is enacted I believe we will not see any significant change. We will not see prison officers reaching for pepper spray in an immediate response to a circumstance which otherwise they could resolve.

It is important to point out what the Bill does and does not do in relation to incapacitant sprays. It does not authorise unconditional possession or deployment. Rather, it removes what is currently an outright prohibition on prison officers possessing, using or carrying such sprays in the course of their duties. The Bill provides that such sprays will be permitted only in accordance with such further provisions as may be made by me under the prison rules. The use of such sprays will be further underpinned by mandatory policies and operating procedures and by bespoke training for prison officers to ensure that these devices are used appropriately and in line with all applicable health and safety and human rights considerations. The sprays will also be piloted in selected locations before any wider roll-out. Consequently, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 1, 2 or 3.

I thank Senator O'Reilly for her amendment No. 10. It proposes to insert a new section 6 into the Bill providing for a review of operation of the provisions relating to the possession, use and carriage of incapacitant spray. The review would be carried out by the Minister no later than 12 months after commencement and would examine the operation and practice of the provisions enabling prison officers to possess, use and carrying incapacitant spray. The measures to be considered in the review are set out in paragraphs (a) to (f).

I share the objective of keeping legislation under review. However, Senators will be aware, and Senator McDowell and I discussed this recently, that under Dáil Standing Order 204 there must be a post-enactment report in respect of all Acts enacted. I believe there is a similar provision in the Seanad Standing Orders. That report is to be prepared by the Minister responsible for implementation 12 months after enactment and provides a review of the functioning of the Act to date. These reports are laid in the Oireachtas Library. The review the Senator proposes would, in practice, substantially duplicate the post-enactment report process that already applies to this Bill on commencement. Indeed, having this obligation in the Standing Orders rather than scattered across various pieces of legislation ensures consistency in the manner and timing of reviews of new legislation. For those reasons I do not consider a statutory review provision of the kind proposed as necessary. Therefore, I will not be accepting the amendment.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive contribution. I disagree with some parts in relation to focusing only on an increase in population as a cause for overcrowding. The Minister's Department is going to support policies and changes which he has announced in relation to community sanctions, which acknowledges that prison is overused. In certain years, between 68% to 75% of people in prison are there for minor convictions. In terms of overcrowding, a greater cause for concern than the population rise is the overuse of sentences of less than 12 months. Nobody receives an intervention in less than 12 months in Irish prisons, regardless of how much work is happening in the prison. Addiction waiting lists are extremely long. A person will not see a psychologist within that 12 months. Whatever the Minister's comments on the rise in population being the reason, I cannot allow that alone to stand as the reason. It would be good for the Minister to acknowledge that we can also reduce the prison population through how we actually do justice in relation to those community sanction pieces. That would drastically reduce overcrowding, regardless of whether I agree with more infrastructure. My goal would obviously be a world where we do not need prisons at all. While I am not completely naive, I do not support such numbers of people receiving prison sentences for relatively minor convictions where they will not actually receive any sort of rehabilitative measures within that year. If anything, it grows their criminality because people and young people are exposed to all sorts of people from other communities. People often say when they come out of prison from shorter sentences that their engagement in criminality begins again and that they have made wider connections. It is no use. I would like that point to exist there.

Not to undermine the professionalism of prison officers but I am not sure whether the Minister is aware - he probably is - of the recent report from the Council of Europe's committee for the prevention of torture, which raised serious concerns around the under-development of training of Irish prison officers in relation to physical restraint, that is, without a weapon or incapacitant spray. The committee for the prevention of torture has already stated that our prison officers are not trained properly on the use of force. I am not saying that is the fault of the prison officers, whether it is down to the training or how people are taught, I do not know the answer to that. That fact exists that we are now going to layer on an incapacitant spray without addressing what the Council of Europe's committee stated, which was that there is a serious concern in how Irish prison officers currently use restraint. We would probably be better off investing in how we adequately train prison officers in de-escalation and safer restraint as a first step before we consider incapacitant sprays. At this stage, I am not going to convince the Minister to change or review his opinion on the amendments. However, I would like the Minister to acknowledge that population increase is not the primary or only cause of overcrowding in the Prison Service.

I listened carefully to what Senators O'Reilly and Ruane have said. I share their view that prison should be a punishment of last resort rather than in any circumstance a punishment that is handed down, particularly in the District Court, with a view to seeming to take a severe stance in the hope that the Circuit Court will some time later take a more moderate view of the offence. Quite often in these Houses we hear earnest demands for mandatory prison sentences for assaulting emergency workers, gardaí and so on. At the same time the catastrophic consequences of sending a young person, nearly always a young man, to prison for an assault in those circumstances, is not taken into account by those who demand such measures be brought into law.

The second thing is that we are not dealing here with Tasers being used in prisons. We are just talking about incapacitant sprays. I share the view that we do not want to normalise their use. I remember when I was where the Minister is, being worried by the use of cells for the detention of prisoners who get overly het up. They were put into rubber-lined cells in total darkness as a fairly frequent event in terms of prison discipline, which I considered unacceptable. We dealt with that issue by ending the previous practice and bringing in a far more humane system of isolation cells for people who are a danger to themselves or to others. I am glad that change was made.

Nonetheless, I take the view that we are in a situation where our prison system is in crisis. It is not in the Minister's interest to unduly dwell on this fact but it is in crisis because over-occupancy has risen to very serious proportions.

That is in the context where we had one quarter remission for good behaviour back in the days when I was the Minister for justice. It is now one third remission. It is not as if the system has not attempted to cope with the situation that now exists.

In the context of how we deal with this problem, it is true that it is not solely related to the growth in population, but it is equally naive to believe that social attitudes to the criminal justice system exist in total isolation from the question of sentencing policy. My view is that those who demand severe penalties, even in a context where there is one third rather than one quarter remission, are, in fact, demanding the need for extra prison spaces when those penalties are being imposed.

With an increasing population, particularly where demographic increases are taking place, namely in the age groups where criminality is more located and more likely to occur, from a statistical point of view, the simple fact is that at the very least we need the number of prison spaces that exist at present. In addition, those prison spaces need to be allocated on a humane basis. We are putting two or three people in a cell - two on bunks and one on a rubber mattress on the floor. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has commented on this situation, as has the UN committee. How can anybody think that situation can possibly be reconciled with an overall political mandate to engage in rehabilitation of prisoners? How can somebody who has existed for months or years in such circumstances really be expected to emerge out of prison as an improved citizen determined to spend the rest of his or her life obedient to the law? The reality is that massive overcrowding gives rise to major problems in terms of interpersonal relations between prisoners and between prison officers and prisoners. That carries with it the whole question of keeping prisoners safe, which we, as a society, have an obligation to do.

This brings me to the point that we were about to build Thornton Hall in 2007. The purpose of that campus was not simply to have a super-prison near Dublin. It was to have sufficient space available on a prison campus for different kinds of units, with different regimes in them, with facilities for sport and outdoor activities, and the capacity to have people properly housed in decent circumstances as opposed to overcrowded conditions.

I am strongly of the view that successive governors of Mountjoy Prison, especially since my time as Minister, have made huge efforts to-----

I know we are on Committee Stage, but-----

I am going to finish this point.

It is not quite on the amendment.

I am not trying to delay things. I do, however, want to put something on record. We are not going to deal with the issues that have been raised unless we have decent, civilised circumstances. We are not going to deal with it. The Minister was asked by Senator O’Reilly to talk about Thornton Hall. He did talk about what he has done in two other locations, and that is good news. It concerned what the Minister has done in Castlerea and what he is planning to do in Clover Hill. What is needed now is for the Minister’s colleagues in government to make an absolutely firm commitment to start building the facility at Thornton Hall, including the various units to which I refer, and to make use of the significant investment that has already gone into that place to end overcrowding. That is the point I want to make. It is the only point I want to make.

I do not believe there is anything inherently wrong with using incapacitant sprays in disorderly situations of a certain kind, but they cannot be made routine. I presume that the rules the Minister has in mind for them will have similar requirements as apply to gardaí, who are even required to report on the use of a baton and the like. Senator Ruane said that perhaps the Minister thinks she is being naive in some of the things she said. Many of the points she is making are correct. The answer, though, is not to leave Irish prison officers in a situation where they have to use excessive force, in excess of what would be achieved by an incapacitant spray, to subdue riotous and disorderly behaviour. In the end, this is not merely a threat to the prison officers themselves, but, very frequently, a threat to other prisoners, for whom we all have a collective duty to keep safe.

I agree with Senator Ruane. I accept that the increase in population is not the only reason why there has been an increase in the prison population. However, it is not inconsistent of me to say that prison capacity should have kept in line with the population increase. The Senator is, of course, correct in recognising, as I do, that there are other reasons why our prison population has increased. First, new laws are being created. We are the people who make the new laws. We are the people who say whether or not a prison sentence is necessary. I am pleased to say that one of the new offences I am introducing under this Bill is sex for rent. When we look at this provision, we will notice that there is no possibility of a prison sentence being imposed for that offence. It is solely a fine. We really need to look at ourselves as legislators when it comes to legislation. Do we always need to include a term of imprisonment as a penalty provision? It is hard for us to criticise judges who impose prison sentences when the Oireachtas has said that penalty is available to them.

Senator Ruane also spoke about the training of prison officers. I was given an exhibition by prison officers down in Castlerea as to how they deal with the unusual but dangerous situation that can arise when there is a violent, aggressive prisoner. It is a very harrowing and difficult process to deal with. My view is that I thought, from my experience and knowledge, that the prison officers were very professionally trained and qualified to do so. It is an extremely difficult task. Something like an incapacitant spray could be a more effective way of dealing with that kind of situation, in the unusual circumstances where the need to use it arises.

Thornton Hall was mentioned by Senators O’Reilly and McDowell. They will know that money is allocated in the national development plan, in its latter part, for Thornton Hall. It is part of my plan, and that of the Government, to build a new prison at Thornton Hall. That is the proposal.

We need to recognise that when it comes to the prison population, people are going to prison now who would not have done so 40 years ago. In some respects, that is a good thing. If we look at sexual offences, men got away with violence, rape and sexual assault years ago. There were no consequences. Now, these offences are prosecuted much more vigorously, including for historical offences, and this is going to result in more people being in prison. Indeed, this will mean more elderly people will be in prison. That is also a discussion we need to have at some stage.

We also need to reflect on situations where it is the instinctive response of the Oireachtas to criminalise certain human activities, and then to impose a penal sanction along with it. We need to reflect on this aspect. Maybe we are criminalising too much human behaviour. I will not start naming proposals now, but there are some out there concerning banning certain things. Are these really things that we need to designate breaches of the criminal law, for which, necessarily, there may perhaps be criminal sanction?

Is the amendment being pressed?

I agree with fewer prison sentences for fewer crimes. Yes, I am.

I welcome guests of Senator Joe Conway to the Gallery - Councillor Joe Kelly and his wife Frances, along with Councillor Declan Barry and Sally, as well as Councillor Sandra Conway. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann. I thank them for being here today.

There was an amendment to the vote as one Senator inadvertently voted the wrong way.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, to delete lines 23 to 27.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 10, to delete lines 34 to 41, and in page 11, to delete lines 1 to 4.

Amendments Nos. 4 to 9, inclusive, and amendment No. 34 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

These are essential measures to clarify the authority of the Garda to deploy radio frequency jammers to counter drones, or what are technically referred to as unmanned aircraft systems, where required as part of carrying out its statutory functions under the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024.

I will briefly give Senators the background. Drones have increased significantly in prevalence and capability over the past decade. Improvements in accessibility, affordability and ease of operation have resulted in their widespread use. They also present distinct and evolving security risks. This may include threats to life or property, threats to public safety or State security, criminal activity, intimidation or harassment. The growing risks and awareness of illicit drone activity from a security and defence perspective have also been identified at EU level in an action plan on drone and counter-drone security. I am advised that there is a need for legal amendments to confirm that the Garda has legal powers where necessary and proportionate to deal with dangerous or hostile drone activity through the use of what are called radio frequency jammers. This is particularly the case in the context of our forthcoming Presidency of the Council of the European Union.

I am informed that radio frequency jammers can be used to provide a localised source of radio noise that is intended to disrupt wireless communications to illicit or dangerous drone activity. The relevant equipment can be used to detect the presence of a drone or can interfere with it to such an extent that the jammer sends it back to the pilot or makes it land in a safe drone zone. Depending on the equipment used, the effect of using a jammer could extend in a specific localised area beyond the specific radio frequency channels used by a drone to other frequencies to potentially impact other radio frequency users, such as mobile and radio networks and emergency call systems. For this reason, international communications standards suggest that the use of jamming equipment should generally be prohibited but without prejudice to the general need for an exemption to apply where the intended purpose is for security or defence purposes.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are technical in nature and simply deal with reference to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 and the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024. The 1926 Act is the legislation which sets out the current legal regime relating to wireless telegraphy, a term which includes a radio frequency jammer. The Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg, is the State's regulator in this space and it operates a licensing regime for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus. The 2024 Act is the overarching legislation which governs the operation of An Garda Síochána.

With amendment No. 6 I am proposing to amend section 3(6) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 to ensure that the general prohibition on the possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus without a licence from ComReg does not apply to a radio frequency jammer kept by An Garda Síochána for the purpose of working or using it in accordance with the proposed new section, 12(1B) and 12B(1B) of the 1926 Act. This refers to amendments Nos. 8 and 9. In plain language, it refers to An Garda using a radio frequency jammer to interfere with a drone where it is reasonably believed to be necessary to carry out its function under the 2024 Act. Under the current section 3(6) of the 1926 Act An Garda would require a licence from ComReg for the possession of a radio frequency jammer. My concern with this position is that requiring An Garda to operate under licensing conditions set by another State body for the possession and use of equipment would not be appropriate as An Garda cannot cede its policing and security functions in this area to another State body that does not have such functions.

However, this amendment needs to be read in conjunction with amendment No. 7. That amendment has been drawn up following extensive contact between officials from my Department, An Garda, the Department of Culture, Communications, and Sport and ComReg. This amendment inserts a new section, 3B into the 1926 Act which obliges An Garda and ComReg to agree a memorandum of understanding to support the sharing of information on the use of radio frequency jammers for counter-drone purposes. This would cover sharing of information on issues such as maintenance, frequencies used, standard operating procedures and instances of equipment use. It will ensure that An Garda is in a position to maintain the capability for the use of this equipment and avail of ComReg expertise, while ComReg will be informed of all relevant aspects of the use of this equipment.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are consequential in nature. At present, section 12 and section 12B of the 1926 Act provide for offences and monetary penalties for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus to interfere with other such apparatus, which will at present apply to An Garda if it used this equipment. This is one example of where the law in this area is not entirely consistent. Under a separate statutory instrument made in 2011 under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1972, there is a general prohibition on the sale, hire, manufacture or importation of wireless telegraphy interference apparatus, which would include a radio frequency jammer. There is also a clear exemption in the order, which confirms that it does not apply to the importation or manufacture of such equipment by An Garda, the Defence Forces or the Prison Service. Therefore, at present, it is lawful for An Garda to manufacture or import a radio frequency jammer but the law contains inconsistency thereafter with regard to its use. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 amend sections 12 and 12B of the 1926 Act to provide that the offences on the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus to interfere with such other apparatus do not apply to the use of radio frequency jammers by An Garda, for counter-drone activity. This is modelled on previous such amendments introduced to these sections in 2023 in respect of the Dublin Airport Authority.

Amendment No. 34 is technical in nature and simply amends the Long Title of the Bill to reference the amendments to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926, as proposed in amendments Nos. 4 to 9, inclusive.

I am satisfied that these amendments are necessary to ensure An Garda is in a position to carry out its policing and security functions and deal with the threats posed to our security by illicit and unlawful drone activity. I should add that my officials are continuing to engage with the Attorney General's Office to ensure consistency of the proposals with EU communications legislation and I will advise Senators on Report Stage should any issues arise.

To clarify, amendments Nos. 4 to 9, inclusive, are grouped.

Amendments Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 15, to delete lines 1 to 8.

These amendments relate to the civil power. What is important here is that in April 2026 the Minister said that the Defence Forces should be deployed to assist An Garda Síochána removing the fuel protest blockades. There was uproar in the country about this. This was a serious escalation at a time when the Government should have been focused on de-escalation. This is where there are serious concerns in the community. A few weeks later, out of the blue, we get these amendments to expand the deployment of the Defence Forces in aid to civil power being brought forward by the Minister. I want to get an explanation around this so that we have clear understanding. I was on the picket line at these protests. These were peaceful protests. People have the right to protest, but to send in the Army at that time was not appropriate. I hope that the reason behind bringing in these powers is not to do with that. Sinn Féin has been clear that any expansion of Defence Forces powers must be grounded in transparency, democratic oversight and absolute respect for civil liberties. The provisions on aid to civil power raise concerns regarding the normalising of military involvement in policing, which should remain exceptional and limited. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.

Amendment No. 11 proposes to delete the provision regarding aid to civil power from this Bill. If they are needed, let the Minister come back with a stand-alone Bill to the House when the Government is in a position to explain what is behind these proposals. I want to get my head around this.

Amendment No. 13 requires an annual report - that is all - to review these sanctions in the event that amendment No. 11 is not accepted. However, I am hopeful that the Minister will accept both of these amendments.

We are proposing amendment No. 12 in relation to this but I also want to indicate that amendments Nos. 11 and 13 have merit also.

This is particularly the case as they would be added as a very serious component of the legislation before us, which was not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and did not have the same examination. It is a very significant proposal that would allow for the armed forces - not just the armed force because, when you look to the Bill, it is clear that it refers to the armed forces with everything that brings - to be applied in civil situations. In situations where you have issues within civil society and the civil space, we will now be looking to the addition of the armed forces. When we talk about deployment of members of the armed forces, subsection (3) of the new section the Minister is going to introduce proposes that the members of the Defence Forces who are "deployed in aid of the civil power may use such force as is reasonable, proportionate and necessary". The force available to a member of the armed forces is considerably different. Even with the necessity and proportionality attachment, you are still talking about a level of potential force applied within situations that is far different from the level of potential force that is going to be applied within civil policing. You are talking about a significant change in circumstances when you have an issue of civil unrest and you are bringing in military-style responses with the military checks and balances rather than the civil checks and balances.

That is a really serious thing to do. At a minimum, that is why I would support amendment No. 11 from the Sinn Féin Senators. If the Minister is bringing this proposal forward, it is one that merits scrutiny not just by the justice committee but also by the defence committee. It should have the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny on the proposal for a very different kind of use of our armed forces, including the implications for the armed forces and their relationships with society as well. I would also support the idea that in each instance where this is deployed, we should be having a review and reporting in relation to it. Again, I hope it would be rare, but wherever it is occurring, it should be studied as part of very significant scrutiny.

I say this in the context of looking internationally. We all know this. Anybody who has served with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, or worked on any of the other pieces sees that there is always a delicate balance internationally between armed forces and the civilian power. When you blur that line, you are creating a vulnerability in regard to the sense of democratic accountability within the state. We have seen in Korea a huge reaction against something that was obviously far more, but it was an attempt to bring martial power to bear. There was an extremely strong reaction from the public in Korea to those attempts by the political or civil powers to bring martial law to bear.

This is obviously not declaring martial law; it is simply deploying the armed forces for particular instances but there are serious concerns attached that have not been properly scrutinised and that should be examined. Our amendment is actually very minimal compared to amendments Nos. 11 and 13, which I would also support. We simply say that as a basic bar, when this is happening the seriousness of it should be recognised by a requirement for a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Our amendment is perhaps too mild in this regard and in this context, given the potential seriousness of what happens when you place armed members of the Defence Forces on public streets in situations of civil unrest. Let us think about how that looks and feels. I think that as a minimum, there should at least be an opportunity for both Houses of the Oireachtas to have an input into that decision. That would be appropriate to the seriousness of such a decision.

Before I call on the next speaker, I welcome the group from Our Lady's Island-Tacumshane Senior Citizens from Wexford. They are guests of the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Verona Murphy. They are very welcome here today and I hope they enjoy their visit. I call Senator Black.

Amendment No. 12 is about democratic accountability. What we are asking for is fairly straightforward. We are proposing that any order made under section 9, which relates to calling out the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power, should require a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not think the Minister should be able to take a decision of that weight alone. Section 9 deals with the deployment of the Defence Forces domestically, which is not a minor or routine matter. It is an exceptional measure. Exceptional measures require exceptional oversight. I do not believe the decision to deploy military personnel in support of civil authorities should rest with the Minister alone.

We in the Seanad have a role to play in scrutinising and checking executive power. This amendment does not prevent the Minister from acting. It simply requires that both Houses of the Oireachtas are brought into the decision. That is not an obstacle to good governance; it is actually good governance.

I want to be clear about what this amendment is not. It is not an attempt to obstruct legitimate security operations. In urgent circumstances, the Minister retains the power to act and this amendment ensures that such actions are subsequently accountable to this Parliament and the Oireachtas. That balance between executive flexibility and democratic oversight is exactly what the Oireachtas should be insisting on. It is a measured, proportionate amendment and it asks only that decisions of real constitutional weight are subject to parliamentary approval.

A number of things occur to me in this context. The first is that we should not suffer from collective amnesia. It is a long time ago, but not that long ago, that Don Tidey, a supermarket executive, was the subject of a kidnapping. The Provisional IRA, at that stage, looked for £5 million ransom for his return. He was hidden in a number of places but eventually in County Leitrim, in the custody of the Provisional IRA. Extensive searches were authorised by the Government at the time to find and release him and return him to his family.

Let us be clear about one thing. In those circumstances, we cannot have meetings of the Dáil and Seanad to work out whether the Army, which was in the end deployed extensively to find and rescue Don Tidey, should or should not be deployed. You cannot do that in an orderly fashion. You could not say that when Tiede Herrema was the subject of a kidnapping in County Laois, you would want to have a meeting of the Dáil and Seanad to decide whether members of An Garda Síochána should be assisted by members of the Army in confronting that situation. It is worthwhile reminding ourselves that Galen Weston, another executive, was the subject of an elaborate attempt to kidnap him, and the late Ben Dunne was the object of similar activity.

What happened in the case of Don Tidey was shocking. A member of the Defence Forces, Private Patrick Kelly, was murdered. Recruit Garda Gary Sheehan, for whom there is a medal every year now in Templemore, was murdered.

Let us remember that there are occasions when the Defence Forces must be deployed in order to vindicate the rights of citizens. Those events are by no means unique. Those of us who have been around slightly longer than others will remember with crystal clarity when the movement of cash in this State had to be done in the presence of trucks full of soldiers. We saw what happened when that did not happen in Adare, County Limerick. Members of An Garda Síochána were machine-gunned by people intent on stealing money for the Provisional IRA.

We cannot have a situation where Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann have to approve resolutions in all circumstances where events such as those arise. Was it wrong to deploy armed members of the Defences Forces and gardaí in the searches across the country to rescue Don Tidey? If someone is of the view that it was wrong for the Defence Forces to assist An Garda Síochána in that regard, that is fine. However, would anyone who does not share that view seriously suggest that if the Government deployed the Defence Forces in such circumstances, it would not be open to any Member of the Oireachtas who thought there was something wrong with what had happened to seek an early meeting of the Houses to determine whether such powers were properly deployed? In the real world, powers of this kind cannot be contingent on debates in Dáil Éireann.

In the past, the Defence Forces have acted in aid of the civil power. I did it myself on one occasion. On a number of occasions, I ended up in a ditch on the Concession Road outside Castleblayney with my worthy Gustav submachine gun. I was there to protect gardaí from being murdered by people, whether loyalists or our own republican paramilitaries, who were trying to challenge the authority of the Irish State. This has happened before. The real question is what is the appropriate mechanism. Is there a statutory basis for it? I cannot remember - and I do not remember sitting in that ditch either - whether there was, in fact, a statutory basis for what was done previously. I do not remember whether anybody at the time of the Tidey kidnapping and the murders of Patrick Kelly and Gary Sheehan queried whether it was appropriate for the Army to be involved. I doubt that they did because, at the time, it was generally assumed that the Government of the day could call on An Garda Síochána and the Army to act jointly to confront serious situations where necessary. If the current Attorney General and Minister for justice believe that a statutory basis is needed for this, it is our duty to assist them in that regard rather than telling them that we must make provision in law that, before anything is done, both Houses of the Oireachtas must be convened and their authority sought to conduct a search for Don Tidey or that Private Patrick Kelly should not be allowed help An Garda Síochána, laying down his life, without a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The recent fuel protests probably gave rise to further consideration of these matters. It is not coincidence that this section is being put in place. It is proposed that the Minister for Defence should, following a request from the Minister for justice, have the right to direct the deployment of member of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power to do what they have unfortunately done very regularly in the past. It is proposed that deployment would be conditional on a request from one Minister to the other that the Army should be so deployed. This puts what happened in the past on a lawful basis.

The reference to the Minister is a reference to the Minister for Defence. We now have two Ministers for finance and two Ministers for education. We have a Minister for children and Ministers for a whole load of other things. There was a time when most schoolchildren could tell you the names of the Ministers running different Departments but now you would need to have an expert memory to work out the exact jurisdiction of the various Ministers of the Cabinet. I am not going to speak on something irrelevant but I will strongly make the point that we need a full-time Minister for Defence because what has happened to the Defence Forces over the last 20 years has been nothing short of scandalous. They have been run down to a very low state. We can deal with that later.

Let us be clear. Nobody in this community has the right to blockade fuel depots with a view to bringing the country to its knees. It in unlawful and criminal. It is a criminal conspiracy. I will repeat what I have said before in this House; you may not do that. It is not legitimate to do that. It is wrong to do it. It is a breach of the criminal law to do it. There is no right to organise a blockade of fuel depots with a view to bringing the Government to its knees. Nobody has the right to do that, no matter how strongly they feel about taxes on petrol or diesel or whatever. I share many of their views about some of our fossil fuel taxation policies but nobody has the right to bring society to its knees. In those circumstances, if it were necessary to shift trucks and obstacles and it the only group with the equipment to do so was the Army, it would be absurd for those resources not to be available in some shape or form to ensure the lifeblood of the country continued to flow.

I reject the idea that anybody has ever suggested that the Army get involved in batoning civilians on protest lines or anything of that kind. I know full well that what is in mind is tow trucks to open up access to vital fuel arteries to keep this country going. If a group of citizens thinks they have the right to say to Government and the community at large that they will bring Government to its knees unlawfully and in breach of the criminal law, that nobody will stop them and that, if gardaí and squad cars cannot stop them, that will be the end of the matter and the Government will surrender, it does not matter how many people support them, that is a huge mistake.

At the time, I did not want to add fuel to the flames, if I may use that analogy.

It was perfectly proper for the Minister who is with us today to seek the assistance of the Army in deploying trucks to remove other trucks, the purpose of which was to choke off the economic life of the country and bring the economy to its knees. If we do not understand that, we have a really big problem. The idea that both Houses of the Oireachtas would have had to be convened before the Army was sent to rescue Don Tidey is ridiculous. The executive power of the State is lodged in the Government; it is not lodged in these Houses. There are occasions when the executive power of the State requires instant and effective action. These Houses can convene thereafter and say that something was excessive or that something else should not have happened, but the notion that they should be consulted in advance before any of those kind of situations come into play is, frankly, ridiculous.

We have to stand by the rule of law. There are occasions when challenges to the rule of law, as we saw recently, can become so severe that the economic and social damage to the State and its international reputation would be colossal if the Government cannot act effectively. There is ample precedent over the 100 years or so since the foundation of the State for the deployment of the Army and the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power. If the Attorney General is advising the Government that there ought to be or that it is preferable that there should be a statutory basis for this, I am in favour of that. I say most emphatically that, subject to my remark to the effect that we need a full-time rather than a part-time Minister for Defence, what is proposed is not merely sensible but also necessary in support of democracy.

Before I call Senator Higgins, I welcome Brian Sheehan, Kieran Rose and Karl Hayden, who are here as guests of Senator Harmon, to the Gallery.

I will be brief. In the examples the former Minister described, the Army was deployed. This Bill did not exist, and the Army was deployed. We have had discussions about missing persons and other incidents. Let us have legislation on a statutory basis to address such incidents, including kidnapping and so forth. However, the Bill a very wide rather than a nuanced instrument in the context of such incidents. All of the examples mentioned were instances where the Army had already been deployed. There are circumstances where other mechanisms have been found to ensure the Army's deployment. There are many circumstances where that happens.

What we are being asked to agree with here is a very wide categorisation of aid to the civil power that does not refer to extreme circumstances, provide caveats in service of democracy or state that we know only trucks will be sent. The Bill does not state any of those things. It simply states that the Minister for Defence, when asked to do so by the Minister for justice, can allow the deployment of the Defence Forces.

In democracies internationally, there are always very careful safeguards in place between civilian authority and the use of military power. That is because, for many centuries, military power was predominant. There is a reason why, normally, there are extra safeguards. The Minister may not like the safeguard we have suggested in respect of a very simple matter. If he wanted to introduce a time limit, he could do so. The idea of saying that it is preposterous that the Dáil or Seanad would be involved is not true. In a time-bound situation, we can look to the kind of measures used in certain European legislation. It could be the case that in order for an exercise to continue beyond 48 hours or for there to be a time-limited action, that would be subject to review and approval for continuation by the Oireachtas. Many nuances can be put on that. The amendment is an attempt to have a structure of accountability regarding what is not currently even the subject of a discussion at Cabinet; it is the subject of a discussion between the Ministers for justice and Defence.

The Bill does not categorise circumstances where this would be the only approach or where other measures might be looked. It simply refers to "such class or classes of assistance as may be agreed". There are two Ministers who can say that the Army can be used for whatever classes of assistance they decide they want to use it for and that this will be subject to "such conditions as he or she may specify". The Minister for Defence may set out some conditions, but we will not know what they are. We will not even know what kind of conditions they are.

I am sure we can come up with historical and projected future examples where there may be circumstances where the Army may be needed to support the civil power. Sinn Féin, which opposes the Bill completely, is not against that idea but would like it to teased out properly by the defence and justice committees. We should be wary of a kind of blank-cheque measure which simply states that two Ministers can decide when to use the Army to provide whatever kind of assistance they believe they want.

There may be conditions that the Minister may specify. Will these be made public? Members of the public know their rights when gardaí engage with them. Will they know their rights in regard to engagement with the armed forces? Will that be a clearly known fact? If a person is approached by a member of the Defence Forces, will they know their rights and responsibilities and will the know how to respond? Where is the transparency around the conditions and circumstances? That is important in light of the effect on public confidence and democracy when the Army is on the streets.

I am not saying that there no circumstances in which the Army should be on the streets, but we should be clear about the circumstances and conditions and when and how that would be done properly. There is nothing to stop the Minister coming back on Report Stage with a commitment to produce and publish regulations in respect of the use of the Army in support of the civil power. There could be public regulations we could all read. We could know that in any given circumstance where there is organised crime or where it is believed that there is a level of violence and risk involved, certain urgent action can be taken. We need things that are clear which we can all look at and know why something is happening, rather than somebody on the street seeing the Army being brought in and knowing that the Minister for justice asked the Minister for Defence to send it in without knowing what that means.

Again, there is nothing to prevent transparency. The Minister might clarify if he intends to publish conditions or to seek that the Minister for Defence do so. There is no provision in the legislation around regulations on the use of the Army. The Minister could think about producing a schedule - this could be added to - in respect of what classes of assistance the Army might be used for.

Will there be safeguards whereby the Army only gets brought in when it has been shown that civil power alone is not enough? For example, was civil power not enough in relation to the arrests of individuals in certain circumstances? Was civil power not enough in relation to perhaps the seizure or impoundment of vehicles, if that is the issue that is being talked about? Were those powers deployed? Why are we moving to the Army without having exhausted the civil powers? It is not a matter of simply saying here is a bigger hammer that I would like to use. It is a matter of whether the tools at hand within our civil authorities have been used and whether the use of this new tool has been justified at this new time. All people are looking for is transparency and clarity. If the Government does not like the time delay, I believe that our Legislature makes capable and good decisions quickly in emergencies and let us see what the other safeguards are.

However, right now, it is a conversation between two Ministers. It has a huge issue of opacity, and it will damage the confidence in both civil authorities and our armed forces unless it is clarified and confidence can be restored.

I thank the Senators for putting forward the amendments and all Senators for their contributions. Just so everyone is aware, we are discussing proposed amendments to section 9 of the Bill and that is the section that seeks to put in a new provision into the Defence Act 1954 to ensure that there is an updated statutory mechanism in respect of members of the Defence Forces being deployed in aid of the civil power.

At the outset, it is important to be aware of, note and record that, at present, there is ongoing assistance provided by the Defence Forces to An Garda Síochána and that is something that has happened consistently over the past 40 or 50 years.

Senator McDowell referred to the kidnapping of Don Tidey and, of course, the campaign of violence waged by the Provisional IRA on this island for a period of 25 or 30 years, which tragically resulted in the murder of Private Patrick Kelly, a member of Óglaigh na hÉireann, by the Provisional IRA. It is also important to point out that even back in the 1970s and 1980s, the Army provided assistance to An Garda Síochána and there was a mechanism by which that was done and I will refer to that presently. It continued during the times when we had serious organised crime. The Garda frequently requested the assistance of the Army and Defence Forces for the purpose of accompanying and guarding large transits of cash during the course of bank deliveries.

Fortunately, that type of criminal activity has now ceased. After many years, the Provisional IRA realised the futility of its campaign and organised criminals as well now recognise that trying to rob large amounts of cash is fruitless, particularly since that does not happen with the same frequency now.

Nonetheless, it is still the case that An Garda Síochána requests the assistance of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power on a regular basis and that assistance is granted. An Garda Síochána issues what is referred to as a C70 document. It is a form that a chief superintendent or someone higher will issue to the Defence Forces in a region for the purpose of getting its assistance. It may arise in circumstances where there is concern about an explosive device. Great expertise exists within the Defence Forces in respect of explosive devices and ensuring that they are made safe. An Garda Síochána frequently requests that.

It also happened last year in respect of the death of the unfortunate Mike Gaine. As the Cathaoirleach will know, Mike Gaine was a farmer in south Kerry. There was an investigation on his land to look for his remains. An Garda Síochána requested the assistance of the Army for the purpose of that search and it was granted. That is an example of a perfectly legitimate and understandable request from An Garda Síochána to the Defence Forces under the C70 system.

In fact, there were 144 requests from An Garda Síochána by way of C70s to the Defence Forces last year, so this is something that continues on a frequent basis. It does not result in armed officers of the Defence Forces being seen on the street, but it is something that is necessary and appropriate. As I announced earlier this year, An Garda Síochána requested the Defence Forces to come in to provide assistance to remove large trucks. This is the type of request that is standard and acceptable. I agree with Senator McDowell that it is not something that requires a vote in both Houses of the Oireachtas before that can be granted.

It is, however, probably worth setting out the current legislative framework relating to the aid of the civil power. There are relevant provisions relating to aid of civil power currently set within the Defence Act 1954, in regulations made under the Defence Act 1954 and in various other enactments. Section 90 of the 1954 Act provides for the calling out in certain circumstances of reservists in aid of the civil power. In addition, other enactments provide for the manner in which members of the Defence Forces provide assistance to the Garda and other State bodies in relation to specific matters. There are also regulations made under the Defence Act 1954 in relation to the provision of aid to the civil power. The regulations in question are entitled Defence Forces Regulation CS1 (Employment of Troops in Aid of the Civil Power 1967).

It should also be noted that there is case law to support the current provisions relating to aid of the civil power. It is acknowledged that the regulations that have been in existence for almost 60 years are in need of modernisation, and the provisions relating to the use of force that are currently set out in the regulations are more appropriately situated within the relevant primary legislation that is the Defence Act 1954.

It should also be pointed that the approval of the Government to draft an amendment to the Defence Acts was obtained on 9 March 2026, way before the protests that occurred. It was suggested by Senator McCormack that this amendment was introduced out of the blue after the protests. That is not correct. The approval of the Governments was obtained on 9 March 2026, and the relevant draft head was published on the website of the Department of Defence in March 2026.

In summary, the new section 40B does not provide for a substantive change to the current legislative framework under which members of the Defence Forces may be deployed in aid of the civil power. However, it is necessary as it ensures that provision is appropriately set out within the Defence Acts for this important role of the Defence Forces and, accordingly, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 11.

That brings me to amendment No. 12, which relates to the provisions in Part 4 of the Bill concerning, again, the long-standing role of the Defence Forces in aid of civil power. This amendment would appear to require that any deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power would require a resolution to be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Can we just pause and think about that in the context of the assistance that was provided by the Defence Forces to An Garda Síochána in the search for the remains of Mike Gaine? Is it seriously suggested that when the gardaí down in south Kerry decided that they needed assistance to look for the unfortunate man's mortal remains that they would have had to hold on until they got a resolution signed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, which would have taken a week or so? Also, what expertise does this House have when it comes to assisting or directing An Garda Síochána as to what assistance it needs for the purpose of carrying out their functions? Similarly, if there was an explosive device found somewhere down the country and An Garda Síochána needed to call in the explosives section of the Defence Forces in order to defuse it, are we seriously suggesting that there has to be a motion brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas requiring that a resolution be passed to permit it? That provision would be impractical and excessive in view of the nature and volume of the deployments.

As I said to the Senator, there were 144 requests last year. Most of them did not give rise to any issues of concern and none of them really resulted in very visible presence of the Defence Forces on our streets, as was mooted by some Senators.

Statistical information in relation to the deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power is provided on an annual basis in the annual report of the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. The report is laid before this House - the Seanad - as well as the Dáil. It clearly sets out the wide range of operations that take place in aid of the civil power. It should also be noted that the requirement for the deployment of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power often rises at short notice. Therefore, it would not be feasible to provide that a resolution of both Houses would be required before deployment. For those reasons, I cannot accept amendment No. 12.

Amendment No. 13 provides for reporting requirements for the operation of the new Part 3A of the Defence Act 1954. As I have already noted, statistical information in relation to the deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of civil power is already provided on an annual basis in the annual report of the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces, which is laid before this House. As such, I do not consider that the amendment proposed by Senators is required. In addition, the reporting requirements set out in the amendment also relate to operational matters relating to the Defence Forces, and it would not be appropriate on security grounds to report on such matters. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment on those grounds.

I accept that the Minister is making the case, and he makes it strongly in terms of the resolution in relation to all of the instances. The problem is that all of the instances are all bundled in together. We have heard the examples that the Minister has given us and the examples that Senator McDowell has given us. The point is that within the scope of what is in front of us as legislation, there is no differentiation or clarity regarding those instances that we have talked about, which have happened and occurred in other countries and relate to armed forces in the context of protest, in the context of the street and perhaps in the context of the protection of private assets and a lot of other circumstances. The Minister has mentioned that this is already happening. We have to look to what is actually being added by bringing this in. What we can see is that it is very widely framed.

I accept that the Minister has made the case that in many of the small instances that occur it may not be necessary or appropriate to have a resolution, but I had asked what was meant by "such class or classes of assistance as may be agreed". Can we look to the categorisation? Can we look to some form of public transparency or regulation as to the "class or classes of assistance"? The Minister seems to believe it will involve defusing bombs or looking for missing persons, etc. Let us have a number of those circumstances set out. This is done in the defence sector in general, in terms of why the armed forces might be deployed by the Minister for Defence usually. There are sets of circumstances that are listed. If the Minister does not want to have the safeguard of a resolution, and since we have not had the advantage of pre-legislative scrutiny that would have allowed the teasing out of these issues properly, can he give clarity on whether he intends to bring any kind of light or clear regulation, or any accountability, in terms of the question of which class and classes of assistance this may be used for? The examples that have been given are all very worthy, but right now that is not a closed set. We do not know. It is wide open, and, with respect, the Minister may not be the Minister for justice in the future. There may be other Ministers for justice. We have seen that where there are powers of this kind, we need transparency and clarity around how they may be used. We need only look to the United States, where there have been very worrying uses of powers in relation to civilian protest very recently. In that context, I am asking whether, similar to the conditions that the Minister for Defence specifies around the use of the Defence Forces, there will be some transparency on the "class or classes of assistance as may be agreed". This could be done on an instance-by-instance basis or, ideally, by regulation that is publicly available. What are the alternative mechanisms?

I will be brief because I am conscious that there are other amendments. It is instructive to note that there is a report laid before this House every year which sets out detail about that. No one ever talks about it or raises it. The information is provided there. As the information was provided in the past, it will continue to be provided in the future. There must be recognition that the amendments that have been set down would be grossly inappropriate, considering the nature of the requests that are going in from the Garda to the Defence Forces. There should be a close working relationship between both when it comes to areas of expertise or functionality that the other cannot perform, and when assistance is required.

I am interested and pleased in a way that the Minister has been able to inform the House that this did not arise from the petrol strike. That is encouraging. It is very interesting that this was being considered beforehand, in any event. I believe, and I know this from such connections as I have with the Defence Forces, that they are very conscious of operating within the rule of law. The Defence Forces legal service is an elaborate organisation, which takes its national and international obligations very seriously. I have no doubt that the Defence Forces view it as important that what they do in the public sphere, particularly in aid of the civil power, has a basis in law.

We are very naive if we think that post the 1998 agreement there will never be an emergency in this State again. We just have to look at what could happen in Northern Ireland and in various other scenarios to understand that the unexpected cannot be predicted.

I will go back to a point that I want to emphasise. The Constitution says that "The Government shall meet and act as a collective authority, and shall be collectively responsible for [all] the Departments of State" under its remit. The notion that the Minister for justice and the Minister for Defence can, effectively, mount a coup on the phone is simply fanciful. They would not last a minute if they did that without the consent of the rest of the Government for what they were doing.

We have to remember that there is a legislative power, an executive power and a judicial power. I am sometimes very critical of lawyers in particular - I put the Judiciary collectively into this basket - and legislators who somehow deny that the executive power of the State is of equal importance with the other two. The executive power of the State is dealt with in the Constitution on an equal basis. A lot of people want to claw back from the Government any discretion, and want to try to make it subject to, first, statute, and, second, judicial supervision with a view to effectively saying that the executive power of the State is a residual power which is unimportant. When push comes to shove and in an emergency, the Government, the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána must be available to uphold the civil authority of the Government. There are things that An Garda Síochána can do and there are things it sometimes may not be able to do, whether it is a search for the body of Michael Gaine, confronting the Don Tidey kidnapping or confronting other threats which existed.

It was not just a matter of Concession Road outside Castleblayney. I can tell the House that every single reservoir in the Dublin region was under military guard. Sewage treatment plants were under guard. Electricity substations and generating stations were under military guard, along with the airport and places like that in the 1970s. The Government at the time did not have to come into this House and seek authority in advance for doing what is necessary to uphold public safety. Anybody who thinks that it is in any way remotely correct that the two Houses of the Oireachtas should authorise in advance every single deployment of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power is, in my view, mistaken.

The Minister for Defence operates through the Department of Defence, the military commands, and through the Defence Forces regulations in a highly regulated way. This section proposes that the Minister has a duty as a member of the Government to assist the Government in the maintenance of the security of the State and to maintain the authority of the Government collectively. Anybody who thinks that they can usurp the right of the Government to protect us collectively is deeply mistaken.

Going back to what happened after this head was approved by the Government – and I am glad to hear it was after it – and the arrogance of people who think they can go on radio and television and say they will bring the Government to its knees, no, people sitting in the cabs of lorries have no right to bring the Government to its knees. They have no right to wander around the country trying to assert that they themselves are somehow the equivalent of government with no mandate of any kind whatsoever. I will not go further but a lot of them were given plenty of platforms to articulate the view that they had a mandate to bring the Government to its knees. How mistaken, how anti-democratic, how anti-republican and how contrary to the rule of law all that was needs to be thought about repeatedly.

Before we put the next question, I welcome guests of Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher from Ballybofey and Stranorlar. You are most welcome to Seanad Éireann.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 15, line 2, after “subsection (2)” to insert “and a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas”.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 15, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

“Review and annual reporting on operation of Part IIIA

40D. (1) The Minister shall, in respect of each calendar year, carry out a review of the operation of this Part.

(2) A review under subsection (1) shall include an assessment of the exercise of powers under sections 40A, 40B and 40C, including the frequency and circumstances of their use.

(3) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the completion of a review under subsection (1), prepare and publish a report containing anonymised data relating to—

(a) the number of occasions on which powers under sections 40A, 40B and 40C were exercised,

(b) the general nature of the operations or deployments concerned,

(c) the use of force in the exercise of those powers, and

(d) any other information the Minister considers appropriate for ensuring transparency in the operation of this Part.

(4) The Minister shall cause a copy of a report under this section to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after its

publication.”.”.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 16, to delete lines 23 to 26.

Amendment No. 14 asks us to delete specific lines from section 12 which deal with bail, and we are concerned that these provisions expand the grounds on which bail can be refused. We do not believe that expansion is justified or that it has received the scrutiny it deserves. We all know bail is not a reward, it is an entitlement rooted in the presumption of innocence. When we expand the grounds on which it can be refused, we are in effect detaining people who have not been convicted of any offence. That is a serious step and it requires serious justification.

I wish to flag something about how this Bill has been developed. As it has passed through the Oireachtas, new provisions have been added on bail, extradition and other areas, often without the scrutiny those provisions deserve. The Minister himself has acknowledged that he has used this Bill as a vehicle for measures which did not go through pre-legislative scrutiny. We should be cautious about what we are passing today. We ask that these lines be deleted, not because we are against protecting the public, but because the expansion of bail refusal grounds has to be evidence-based, clearly justified and properly scrutinised. We do not believe that standard has been met for these specific provisions. The right to liberty pending trial is absolutely fundamental and we should not be chipping away at it through miscellaneous provisions Bills.

I thank Senator Black for moving this amendment and for her contribution. It is the case that a miscellaneous provisions Bill is a very useful legal instrument for the purpose of trying to make varying changes to different laws, and you can get it done on a pretty fast and expedited basis. I do not make any apology for the fact that that is what I am seeking to do. I have had very significant engagement with the Houses of the Oireachtas in respect to this legislation, in particular with the Seanad. I believe that the Bill, quite correctly, has been subject to the scrutiny it deserves, as is the case with all legislation.

Amendment No. 14 from Senator Black is an amendment proposed to section 12, which proposes an amendment to section 27 of the Extradition Act of 1965. Senator Black's amendment proposes to delete section 12(d) of the Bill. Paragraph (d) substitutes section 27(7) of the 1965 Act to provide that if, within 28 days of a person's provisional arrest, no ministerial certificate is produced confirming that an extradition request has been made, the person shall be released from custody or from the terms of his or her bail. The existing provision in the legislation provides for a remand period of 18 days. The effect of Senator Black's amendment would be simply to leave the 18 days in place. I want to change it to 28 days for the following reason, and I think it is a considered and balanced change. The proposal arises from advice my Department received from the Chief State Solicitor's Office that if the Bill's other amendments to the Extradition Act are to operate as intended, the current 18-day maximum remand period should be increased to 28 days. Doing so will ensure that where a person has been remanded on foot of a provisional arrest without warrant, there is sufficient time for the formalisation and processing of extradition requests from Switzerland and Liechtenstein, but also from other countries, such as the United States, which can be very difficult to finalise within the 18-day period for procedural reasons beyond the control of the Chief State Solicitor’s Office and, indeed, the central authority in my Department.

It should be noted that the European Convention on Extradition refers to 18 days after provisional arrest as a minimum remand period. I am unsure as to why the Legislature chose this as the maximum period under the 1965 Act, but I am satisfied it is no longer fit for purpose. The convention allows for a remand period of up to 40 days, and in this context, the increase to 28 days I am proposing is reasonable and proportionate in the interests of a well-functioning extradition system. I note also that there is no legal bar to the making of a bail application by a person who has been provisionally arrested, either at their first court appearance or thereafter. For those reasons I cannot accept the amendment put forward by Senator Black.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 18, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(ab) Before imposing a sentence of imprisonment of 24 months or less, the court shall expressly consider the suitability of a community service order and shall record its reasons where it determines that such an order is not appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

(ac) In considering whether a community service order is appropriate, the court shall have regard to the rehabilitation of the offender, the interests of victims, the protection of the public and the reduction of reoffending.”.

I am moving this amendment because there is a tendency in discussions on criminal justice to assume that if we simply move more people away from custodial sentences, the problem somehow solves itself. I agree with comments from Senator McDowell on the idea of prison being a last resort, but there also has to be an emphasis placed on justice and fairness, especially for victims. Community service has a role to play. There are certainly cases where it is a more appropriate response than a short prison sentence and where people would benefit more from structured community services than from spending a few months in prison, but the circumstances of the offence matter and the impact on victims also matters.

There is a growing lack of confidence in the criminal justice system. I know of a number of cases which have been raised with me where individuals were found guilty of domestic violence, child abuse or having child sexual abuse material and were given suspended sentences or community service. I do not share the Minister's experience working in the legal system, so perhaps he can shine a light on why, in cases which by all accounts are incredibly violent or abusive, the individual receives a suspended sentence or community service. That is why I am asking that judges expressly consider not only rehabilitation but also the interests of victims, the protection of the public and the reduction of reoffending. I am aware that judges consider this when sentencing, but it is important with the proposed change to the legislation that, if a judge is mandated to consider community service, he would also expect that the reasons for or against this sentence be recorded.

How does the Minister reconcile the increase in emphasis on alternatives to custody with the reality of our rehabilitation system? We talk a lot about rehabilitation but the outcomes are not particularly encouraging. CSO figures show that almost one in four offenders on probation reoffend within a year and almost half reoffend within three years. When somebody leaves prison, where are they leaving to? In many cases, they are entering accommodation that is wholly unsuitable. They may find themselves in a halfway house or temporary accommodation alongside others with addiction issues and criminal histories. We should not be surprised when people end up back before the courts if the environment they are returning to is one that almost encourages reoffending.

I have concerns that this provision is arriving, as the Minister has said on previous amendments, in the context of severe prison overcrowding. There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether the push towards non-custodial sentencing is being driven by what is best for rehabilitation or by the simple fact that we do not have enough prison spaces. If somebody commits a violent offence or causes significant harm to another person, there must be consequences. The public understands that and victims understand that too.

The amendment does not remove judicial discretion, it simply asks the courts to show they have weighed all of these factors that are being decided, whether community service is appropriate and to record their reasoning behind it.

I thank Senator O'Reilly for her amendment and contribution. We are dealing with section 15 of the Bill, which deals with a proposed amendment I am making to the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983. We had a good discussion earlier about the use of incarceration and prison as a penalty for violation of the criminal law. In many respects the proposal I am putting in section 15 complements that and is reflective of a desire for courts to recognise there are other options available for the purpose of granting community service orders.

At present, it is limited to where there is a sentence of up to 12 months' imprisonment. What I am proposing in section 15 is that it would be extended to where you have to consider a sentence which has a potential penalty of up to 24 months' imprisonment. Similarly, I am doubling the amount of community service hours that will be put in place from 240 to 480 hours.

Sentencing is one of the most complex functions a trial judge has. It requires the court to take into account a whole variety of factors. Generally, we do not prescribe actual specific sentences for offences except in the case of murder where there is a mandatory life sentence, and I think that is appropriate. Other than that, there are circumstances in each case which need to be taken into account by judges in terms of not just the liability of the offender and the nature of the offence; but also the offender him or herself and the extent to which this is a first time offence, the extent to which it was out of character with what has happened previously in the person's life and the extent to which the person is an ongoing threat to the community. It is very hard to prescribe then within legislation. However, 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 in prison. That can arise in terms of serious theft or fraud offences. They are factors where there is not a threat to the safety of a person.

Every case that results in a community service order will help to free up prison spaces for offenders who generally warrant imprisonment. As I mentioned earlier, we are increasing the capacity within our prisons but also this is another factor and provision that will assist in making prisons more appropriate for accommodating the people who are there. There are many cases where the court will still determine that a custodial sentence is appropriate and, as acknowledged by Senator O'Reilly, it is for judges to make that determination.

Amendment No. 15 also proposes to set out the matters the court is to have regard to when considering a community service order. There is undoubtedly merit in consideration being given to the matters specified in the amendment but these are already matters to which any judge would be expected to give consideration when considering sentence. Moreover, as legislators we must have in mine the separation of powers and the independent of the Judiciary. I do not think it would be appropriate to prescribe or delimit the court's consideration in such a way. It is also the case that every convicted person's case must be considered on its own merits and those referenced in the amendment may not always be the most pertinent considerations in a given case. I fully accept that sentencing is a complex and complicated issue. It is very difficult for us to second-guess a judge who has heard all of the evidence and will know all of the circumstances of the offence and the offender. All we can do is try to set out in legislation what the range of sentences should be. As I said earlier, it does not always have to be a custodial sentence. What is being done here is, we are not saying to judges that they cannot put a person who is convicted of an offence with a penalty of up to two years in prison. We are simply stating that in that instance, consideration must be given to a community service order. It means 480 hours or up to 480 hours of community service by the offender if the judge goes for that option but I cannot accept the amendments.

Before I call Senator O’Reilly, I wish to welcome to the Visitors Gallery Deputy O’Gorman and his guests. I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House this evening. They are all very welcome.

Is Senator O’Reilly pressing her amendment?

I press my amendment.

Amendments Nos. 17 to 20, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 16; amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 17; amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are physical alternatives to amendment No.18; amendments No. 16 to 20, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 19, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 19A of Criminal Evidence Act 1992

16.(1) The Criminal Evidence Act 1992 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 19A:

“Disclosure of third-party records in certain trials

19A.(1) In this section—

‘Act of 1950’ means the Nurses Act 1950;

‘Act of 1985’ means the Nurses Act 1985;

‘Act of 1995’ means the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995;

‘Act of 2005’ means the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005;

Act of 2011’ means the Nurses and Midwives Act 2011;

‘applicable record’, in relation to criminal proceedings for a sexual offence, means a child protection record, a counselling record, a medical record or a social work record—

(a) in relation to which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy,

(b) which was not compiled for the purposes of, or in contemplation of, the investigation into, or the prosecution of, the sexual offence concerned, and

(c) whether or not the service the subject of the record was provided for remuneration;

‘child protection’ means an intervention or a series of interventions designed to safeguard children from abuse, neglect, violence, exploitation or harm and to promote their safety, wellbeing and rights;

‘child protection professional’ means a person who has undertaken training or study resulting in a qualification, or who has professional experience, relevant to child protection;

‘child protection record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means, by a person who was a child protection professional at the time of the making of the record, in the course of investigating or managing concerns, or carrying out assessments or interventions, in relation to the safety, welfare, or protection of a complainant when the complainant was a child;

‘competent person’ means a person who has undertaken training or study or has experience relevant to the process of counselling;

‘complainant’ means a person in respect of whom a sexual offence is alleged to have been committed;

‘counselling’ means listening to and giving verbal or other support or encouragement to a person, or advising or providing therapy or other treatment to a person;

‘counselling record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means, by a competent person in connection with the provision of counselling to a complainant;

‘court’ means the District Court, Circuit Criminal Court or the Central Criminal Court;

‘disclosure application’ has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (2);

‘medical professional’ means—

(a) a registered medical practitioner,

(b) a registered nurse, or

(c) a registered midwife;

‘medical record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means, relating to the medical treatment of a complainant by, or ordered or initiated by, a person who was a medical professional at the time of the making of the record;

‘registered medical practitioner’, in relation to a particular point in time, means a person—

(a) who was a registered medical practitioner within the meaning of section 2 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007,

(b) whose name was entered in the General Register of Medical Practitioners established under section 26 of the Medical Practitioners Act 1978, or

(c) who was registered in the Register of Medical Practitioners prepared and established under the Medical Practitioners Act 1927,

at that point in time;

‘registered midwife’, in relation to a particular point in time, means a person whose name was entered in—

(a) the midwives division of the register of nurses and midwives established under section 46(1) of the Act of 2011,

(b) the midwives division of the register of nurses established under section 27 of the Act of 1985, or

(c) the midwives division of the register of nurses maintained under section 41 of the Act of 1950,

at that point in time;

‘registered nurse’, in relation to a particular point in time, means a person—

(a) whose name was entered in the nurses division of the register of nurses and midwives established under section 46(1) of the Act of 2011,

(b) other than a registered midwife, whose name was entered in the register of nurses established under section 27 of the Act of 1985,

(c) other than a registered midwife, whose name was entered in the register of nurses maintained under section 41 of the Act of 1950, or

(d) who was registered in the register kept in pursuance of the Nurses Registration (Ireland) Act 1919,

at that point in time;

‘sexual offence’ means an offence referred to in the Schedule to the Sex Offenders Act 2001;

‘social care worker’—

(a) in relation to a particular point in time prior to the establishment under section 36 of the Act of 2005 of the register of members of the profession of social care worker, means a person who was practising as such and who held a qualification that is listed opposite the profession of social care worker in the third column of Schedule 3 to the Act of 2005 or a qualification that is a corresponding qualification, within the meaning of Part 9 of that Act, to that qualification, or

(b) in relation to a particular point in time following the establishment of that register, means a person whose name was entered in that register,

at that point in time;

‘social worker’—

(a) in relation to a particular point in time prior to the establishment under section 36 of the Act of 2005 of the register of members of the profession of social worker, means a person who was practising as such and who held a qualification that is listed opposite the profession of social worker in the third column of Schedule 3 to the Act of 2005 or a qualification that is a corresponding qualification, within the meaning of Part 9 of that Act, to that qualification, or

(b) in relation to a particular point in time following the establishment of that register, means a person whose name was entered in that register,

at that point in time;

‘social work record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means, by a person who was a social worker or social care worker at the time of the making of the record, as part of a professional practice relating to assessing or supporting the welfare of a complainant or any related intervention by the social worker or social care worker.

(2) There shall be a presumption against the disclosure of all applicable records. The presumption against disclosure may only be rebutted in accordance with subsection (11) and (12), furthermore—

(a) applicable records may not be disclosed to the accused in proceedings for a sexual offence without the leave of the court in accordance with this section, and

(b) no one shall request access to a counselling record nor shall a counselling record be disclosed to the prosecutor or to the accused in proceedings for a sexual offence without the leave of the court in accordance with this section.

(3) Where, in criminal proceedings for a sexual offence, the prosecutor or the accused is of the opinion that an applicable record ought to be disclosed to the accused under subsection (11), the prosecutor or the accused, as the case may be, shall make an application (in this section referred to as a ‘disclosure application’), in writing, to the court setting out—

(a) the specific applicable record sought, or particulars identifying same,

(b) cogent reasons for seeking the applicable record which engage with the facts of the case, and

(c) the grounds relied upon to establish that it is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial.

(4) A disclosure application under subsection (2) must be made within 28 days of service of the book of evidence (or the service of a précis of evidence in the District Court) and must be made on notice to the prosecutor or accused, as applicable.

(5) Where a disclosure application is made under subsection (3), the court shall consider the application and where it is satisfied that the grounds relied upon in the application—

(a) establish that the record is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial, the court shall order that a hearing referred to in subsection (8) be held, or

(b) do not establish that the record is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial, the court shall refuse the application.

(6) Where the court orders, under subsection (5)(a), that a hearing referred to in subsection (8) be held—

(a) the court may order that the person who has possession or control of the applicable record concerned shall produce the record to the prosecutor not later than the beginning of such period in advance of the hearing as may be prescribed in rules of court but the court may not make such an order in respect of counselling records,

(b) the court may order that the person who has possession or control of the applicable record concerned, including a counselling record, shall produce the applicable record to the court only, in a confidential manner as prescribed in rules of court, and not later than the beginning of such period in advance of the hearing as may be prescribed in rules of court, and

(c) without prejudice to subsection (7), the prosecutor shall, not later than the beginning of such period as may be prescribed in rules of court, notify the person who has possession or control of the applicable record concerned, the complainant, and any other person to whom the prosecutor believes the applicable record relates of the order of the court under subsection (5)(a) and, where applicable, paragraphs (a) and (b).

(7) The court may, at any time, order that a disclosure application be notified to any person to whom it believes the applicable record may relate.

(8) The court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the content of the applicable record should be disclosed to the accused.

(9) The person who has possession or control of the applicable record, the complainant and any other person to whom the applicable record relates shall be entitled to appear and be heard at the hearing referred to in subsection (8).

(10) In determining, at the hearing referred to in subsection (8), whether the content of the applicable record should be disclosed to the accused under subsection (11), the court shall take the following factors, in particular, into account:

(a) the extent to which the record is necessary for the accused to defend the charges against him or her;

(b) the probative value of the record;

(c) the reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the record;

(d) the potential prejudice to the right to privacy of any person to whom the record relates;

(e) the public interest in encouraging the reporting of sexual offences;

(f) the public interest in encouraging complainants of sexual offences to engage with the provision of services by a child protection professional, a competent person, a medical professional, a social care worker or a social worker;

(g) the effect of the determination on the integrity of the trial process;

(h) the likelihood that disclosing, or requiring the disclosure of, the record will cause harm to the complainant including the nature and extent of that harm;

(i) whether disclosure of the applicable records is sought on the basis of a discriminatory belief or basis.

(11) Subject to subsections (12), (13) and (14), a court shall not, after the hearing referred to in subsection (8), order disclosure of the content of the applicable record concerned to the accused, and where applicable, the prosecutor, unless the court is satisfied, having examined the record, that—

(a) the record is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial,

(b) the information contained in the record cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means, and

(c) one or both of the following apply:

(i) there would be a real risk of an unfair trial in the absence of such disclosure;

(ii) it is otherwise in the interests of justice to so order.

(12) The Court shall not order disclosure of the content of a counselling record to the accused, and where applicable, the prosecutor, unless the court is satisfied, having examined the record, that the information contained in the record cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means and there would be a real risk of an unfair trial in the absence of such disclosure.

(13) The provisions within this section are mandatory. However, a complainant may, either in response to an application under this section or of their own motion through their own legal representation, indicate their consent to the disclosure of an applicable record to the court. Such consent should be fully-informed, based on legal advice and should be given directly to the court. In the event that a complainant wishes to provide their consent of their own motion, such application should be made on notice to the prosecutor and the accused within 28 days of service of the book of evidence or the précis of evidence as the case may be.

(14) (a) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (11), (12) or (13), in the interests of justice and to protect the right to privacy of any person to whom the applicable record relates, the court shall only grant disclosure of such specific material as is strictly necessary and the court may impose any condition it considers necessary on the disclosure of the record.

(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), one or more of the following conditions may be included in an order made pursuant to subsection (11), (12) or (13)—

(i) that a part of the content of the applicable record be redacted,

(ii) that a copy of the applicable record and not the original be disclosed,

(iii) that the applicable record be viewed only at the offices of the court,

(iv) that no copies, or only a limited number of copies, of the applicable record, be made,

(v) that information concerning the address, telephone number or place of employment of any person named in the applicable record be redacted from the record, or

(vi) that the applicable record be returned to the person who owns or controls the said record.

(c) An applicable record that is disclosed to the accused pursuant to subsection (11), (12) or (13) must only be used for the purposes of the criminal proceedings for which the record has been disclosed and may not be disclosed to any person without leave of the court.

(15) The court shall provide reasons for ordering, or refusing to order, disclosure of the content of an applicable record pursuant to subsection (11) or (12).

(16) Where, upon application by the accused, the court considers that the interests of justice require the making of a disclosure application after the period permitted in subsection (3), the court may direct that such an application may be made.

(17) For the purposes of a hearing pursuant to subsection (8), all persons, other than officers of the court, persons directly concerned in the hearing and such other persons (if any) as the court may determine, shall be excluded from the court during the hearing.

(18) In addition to the meaning assigned to that expression by section 27 of the Act of 1995, ‘legal aid’ in that Act means representation by a solicitor or barrister, engaged by the Legal Aid Board under section 11 of that Act, on behalf of a complainant or witness in relation to an application pursuant to this section.

(19) Where any applicable record or counselling record containing opinion, interpretation, or third-party summaries is admitted in evidence, the judge shall issue a warning to the jury that such material is indirect, interpretive, may contain factual errors and should not be treated as a verbatim account of the complainant’s words or actions in particular where the complainant did not have any opportunity to review or correct such contents.

(20) The Minister shall, within 18 months of the commencement of this section, conduct a review of its operation and lay a report of that review before both Houses of the Oireachtas.”.”.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I am putting forward this amendment, which is seconded by my colleague, Senator Cosgrove. This amendment is primarily to deal with the issue which garnered much debate during the passage of this legislation thus far in relation to the issue of counselling notes. We submitted this amendment previously and it has been submitted in the Dáil as well. We want to submit it again to reiterate its importance.

This amendment was drafted by Lorcan Staines SC for the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. The Labour Party, along with the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and others, is supporting and proposing this important amendment. This amendment puts forward an alternative proposal on how we deal with a highly sensitive issue, in order to deal with it in an alternative way and ensure no counselling notes are used as part of trials in court. At the heart of this is protecting survivors and victims and ensuring that they are not retraumatised as part of this process. We must consider the constitutionality of what we are trying to achieve and we absolutely respect that. My colleague, Deputy Alan Kelly, our spokesperson on justice, was very clear on this when he debated the matter in the Dáil as well. We need to push this amendment as far as we can and try to achieve as much as we can and that is what this amendment proposes.

Our amendment makes clear that the interests of justice standard is acceptable for other applicable records but should not apply to counselling records and that express language providing for a clear presumption of non-disclosure is absolutely critical. This amendment represents an alternative option which we hope the Government can accept as part of this Bill.

I note that other jurisdictions are currently moving faster than the Irish Government on this particular issue. Canada is currently amending its laws on disclosure of records in sexual offence trials to strengthen protections there. In particular, they are separating therapeutic records from other records to ensure the application of a higher test before therapeutic records can be disclosed. This approach reflects the approach the Labour Party is proposing in this amendment. We have huge concerns with counselling notes being used, as do many civil society organisations that are working at the coalface of this. Our proposal is that there would be an independent panel with expertise, that no counselling notes would be used but that a narrative would be outlined, with clear limitations on that narrative in terms of details that would be provided in a court situation. What is ultimately critical is that there should be no retraumatising of victims and survivors. There also should be protections put in place as part of this for counsellors, that is, for those professionals working in that area.

We believe this is a sensible amendment that would significantly ameliorate the impact of the Bill, as currently drafted, in terms of the proposal in question, and that it would uphold the requirements in relation to what we are trying to achieve in order to ensure that counselling notes are not used. This is a constructive amendment. We are trying to improve this legislation and make it better for all those who may be affected by it, while also taking constitutionality into consideration.

I will speak to amendment No. 18, which is the amendment I feel most strongly about. We are proposing full and absolute protection for counselling records, in particular in sexual offence cases. It is not partial protection; it is not a high bar. It is an absolute protection with one exception only, namely, where a complainant freely and voluntarily chooses to disclose their own records. That is the clear and simple principle at the heart of the amendment. I will take some time to explain why we believe this matters so much.

When someone who has survived sexual violence walks through the door of a counsellor's or therapist's office, they are taking one of the most courageous steps of their life. They are asking for help. They are beginning to try to heal. At that moment of extraordinary vulnerability, they must be able to speak freely, honestly and without fear. They must be able to trust that what they say in that room will stay in that room, and they should never have to wonder whether the words they speak there could one day be handed to the person who harmed them. They should never have to sit across from a barrister in a courtroom while their most private thoughts, their most painful disclosures, their most fragile moments of healing are read aloud and used to undermine their credibility. That is what is happening. That is what we are here today to try to prevent.

It is important that the House understands that this is not the first time we have tried to address this problem. In 2017, legislation was introduced to create a formal process whereby the defence in a case would have to apply to a judge before counselling records could be disclosed. The intention was sound but the result was not. Dr. Susan Leahy of the University of Limerick, one of Ireland's leading experts in this area, has written clearly that while the 2017 legislation offered the potential to safeguard against unnecessary disclosure, it has failed to achieve this in practice. She found that complainants often consent to disclosure at a very early stage before they fully understand how their notes might be used to challenge their evidence at trial. Some waive their right to the formal process simply to avoid delays they fear will harm their case. The result is that counselling notes continue to feature regularly as evidence in sexual offence trials. The 2017 reform did not work. We cannot make the same mistake again.

I want to speak about Ms Hazel Behan, a survivor from Mullingar. Ms Behan has campaigned on this issue with extraordinary courage with her advocacy group, Éist - Saying No To Silence. She stood outside Leinster House last September and said the following words, which I want to be on the record of the House, "What happens in a therapy room with me and my therapist is none of your business - and it's certainly none, none of the business of the person who I believe harmed me." Ms Behan, prior to addressing the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration on that occasion, told reporters that survivors had been silenced for too long. She described the use of counselling notes in court as horrendously traumatising, something that degrades and disputes everything that a victim survivor is saying in court. She also said that the current system allows defendants to sit and consider the damage they have caused their victim. Hazel is not alone. Solicitor and survivor Sarah Grace, speaking at the launch of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre's annual report in 2023, called the use of counselling notes in court a second violation. These are not abstract descriptions. They are the lived experiences of real people who came forward, sought help and tried to pursue justice but who found that the system used their healing against them.

The harm does not stop with those who have already gone through the courts. The damage reaches back much further to the moment a survivor first considers whether to seek help at all. Counsellor Barbara Kelly, who spoke at the protest outside Leinster House last September, said it is devastating when she has to explain to her clients that their notes may be used in court. She said some people seeking therapy are having to choose between getting justice and healing. That is an unbearable choice. No person who has been through what those survivors have been through should ever be placed in that position. The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has documented that therapists now report that victims are reluctant to seek counselling after suffering sexual violence due to fears that their records could be used against them in court. If we think about what that means in practice, we can see that people who need help are just not getting it. The wounds that could begin to heal are left open. In some cases, survivors who might otherwise have reported matters are staying silent because they cannot face the prospect of their therapy being weaponised. We know from CSO figures that 30% of victims of sexual offences in Ireland in 2024 reported incidents that occurred more than ten years earlier. The disclosure gap is real and vast. Between 70% and 80% of sexual offences reported to the police between 2018 and 2023 remain uninvestigated. We are losing cases before they begin. We cannot afford a system that adds another barrier between a survivor and the courage it takes to come forward.

The Minister stated that said he wants to restrict the use of counselling notes as far as possible. He cited advice from the Attorney General to the effect that a complete ban would be unconstitutional on the basis of an accused person's right to a fair trial. However, the Attorney General's advice is not the final word on what is constitutionally permissible. It is an opinion. It is an opinion that other senior counsel have challenged. The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre sought its own legal advice from a senior counsel and was told that a blanket ban would face constitutional challenge. However, advocacy organisations and others have questioned whether third-hand notes from counselling sessions that are interpretive, subjective and inherently indirect could ever reach the threshold of exculpatory evidence, meaning evidence that genuinely benefits the defence. Section 16 creates a presumption of non-disclosure. That is a step forward. However, a presumption is not a prohibition. It still allows for applications to the court. It still requires complainants to engage with the legal process at one of the most difficult moments of their lives. It still subjects them to the prospect, however unlikely, that their most private records may be produced and examined. Our amendment would close that door completely.

I remind the House of what the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration recommended after hearing all the evidence on this issue, including that of Ms Hazel Behan, namely, a complete and unconditional ban on the use of counselling records in sexual offence trials. It did not recommend a presumption or a high bar; it recommended an unconditional ban. The Cathaoirleach of the committee, Deputy Matt Carthy, said that Ms Behan's evidence had a significant impact on every member of the committee. That is this Oireachtas speaking. That is pre-legislative scrutiny doing its job. Yet, the Government has not followed that recommendation. Our amendment follows it. We are asking the House to honour what one of the committees of the Oireachtas has said.

A further point that is often overlooked in the debate is that counselling records are not factual in nature. They are not transcripts. They are interpretive documents written by a third party and reflecting their observations and understanding of what a client has expressed. They may be incomplete. They may reflect the language and framework of the counsellor rather than the exact words of the survivor. They may record early disclosure, accounts that were incomplete or confused because that is the nature of trauma. That is how trauma memory works. To use such records to challenge a survivor's credibility in a criminal trial is fundamentally to misunderstand both the nature of trauma and the nature of counselling. It is to take the most human and the most healing part of a survivor's journey and turn it into a weapon. That is not justice; it is continuation of harm.

I have spent many years working through the RISE Foundation with people who are finding the courage to ask for help. I know what that first step costs. I know how fragile that moment is and that for many people, the decision to walk through the door of a counsellor or a support service is probably the bravest thing they have ever done in their lives. If there is any reason at all to fear that what happens in that room could be used against them, many will not take that step. We owe it to those people to remove that fear entirely - not to reduce it or manage it but to remove it. I am asking the House to go further than the Government has gone.

I am asking us to say clearly and without qualification that counselling is safe; that the room is safe; that what a survivor says to their therapist in their most vulnerable moment belongs to them alone and to nobody else; that the person who harms them will never have access to it; and that the court will never compel its disclosure. Full stop. This amendment is not radical. It is the right thing to do. It is what survivors have asked for. It is what the Oireachtas justice committee recommended and it is what the evidence demands.

I wish to speak to amendment No. 17. I support the amendments tabled by Senators Harmon and Black. The Minister has listened to this at length in the committee and in so many debates. I understand that it is like Groundhog Day. He hears the same thing over and over again. The issue is not going away because women, men and everybody who needs to attend counselling feel so strongly about the damage it would do if we keep this practice in place. I urge the Minister to act. I know he has listened to Hazel Behan, who is a fantastic advocate, and Paula Doyle. They gave very powerful testimonies in the justice committee. I know he is seeking advice about ways around it without having a complete ban. When someone is starting out on their journey after having a horrific experience and they need to seek counselling, they do not know at that time whether those notes are going to be subjected to being brought through the courts and whether their perpetrator will have all of this very private information about them. We know this is preventing them from going for counselling at the time. We know it is leading to suicide. The Minister mentioned he was at the launch of the report by Women's Aid. I outlined in the Chamber earlier the 162 pages of the report and that the statistics are worse than we have ever had on the island of Ireland. It is a national crisis, not just in the Twenty-six Counties but all across Ireland. We know the number of cases reported. We also know that they are only the cases that are disclosed and the names of the women and children who ended up in the report. I plead with the Minister to say that the Upper House has meaningful debates and that today he is going to accept one of these amendments and do the right thing for the future of victims in Ireland. I hope he is going to find a way to ban the use of counselling notes for all of the people who have suffered. They will be in court because they have suffered as a result of the actions of someone else. I know we need to ensure there is a fair trial but there are ways around it. Someone's evidence and opinion of their evidence – because it is the counsellor's notes – should not be the main source for adjudication in a court case due to the amount of trauma it causes to the victim.

All of the amendments to this section are trying to come at something we all know to be true, which is that the signal being sent on the use of counselling records in sexual offences trials will have a devastating effect, not only in terms of the retraumatisation of victims or the chilling effect, as was outlined in terms of counselling and people accessing support, but it will also have a very serious chilling effect on the law. The interests of justice get talked about at one point in this Bill, but if we apply a wider frame to it, and we put a test on it and apply it to the provision allowing for counselling notes to be accessed, I do not believe that is in the interests of justice. The issues of a fair trial and so forth have been cited but, again, the instances are low in terms of evidence being provided of situations where this is clearly affecting the outcome of a trial.

What we know, based on the statistics, is that 71% of victims of incidents of sexual violence did not report it to the Garda. There is a crisis of justice in relation to sexual violence in this State. The same statistics and survey found that 76% of the public, not just the victims, believe that victims of sexual violence are going to get a hard time in a trial. The vast majority of the public do not have confidence in the victims of violence getting fair treatment at trial. The vast majority of those who experience sexual violence are afraid to go to the guards. We have a massive crisis in justice right now in terms of how sexual violence is dealt with and how justice is meted out in society. We should not resort to saying that it is a pity, that here is how it is and that we are worried. We should be asking what more we can do. How can we improve the situation? How can we get it down to 50% of those experiencing sexual violence in the State believing that it is worth going to the guards and going through a court case and that they will not be retraumatised and dragged over the coals, which is the common perception? That is the perception of the vast majority of people in towns, villages and families. If someone experiences sexual violence, people will tell them it is not worth it. It is not just that people would be afraid to go to counselling, even though it is huge to have to choose between healing and justice. That is what is being said here. If someone knows counselling could be used against them, it damages the whole process. It may or may not be used. The Minister could say not to worry because it will very much be balanced out and there will be all of these caveats, but they are not enough. The very fact is that when they have the conversation they know, at a minimum, somebody else will see it who they do not know - those who will be determining if it is relevant. This is after a person has felt violated in that way. Regardless of whether it gets given to the person who may have attacked them and their lawyers, other strangers will read their personal trauma when making a determination on whether they want to give it to the person who may have attacked or assaulted them.

That is what is ahead of a person when they are at the door of the counselling office if they have experienced sexual violence in the State. What is ahead of them if they go through the other door – into the Garda – is the idea of trials the public do not believe will treat victims fairly. They say they believe they will get a harder time than victims of other crimes. Most people feel they will not get justice. That is the problem we have. We must find ways to build levels of trust and get our way out of that system and away from the problem. Not all, but the vast majority of victims are women. We are also talking about a whole swathe of the population who are afraid of going to the justice system for certain offences. That should be a problem we debate at length in Bill after Bill. We should try everything to build confidence in the justice system among that part of the population. Instead, stuck into a miscellaneous Bill with lots of other things we are saying "By the way, your counselling notes will now potentially be made available."

This is a backward step from a situation that was already a crisis of justice.

I want to go to some of the specific amendments here. First of all, I recognise the very detailed and excellent work that was done and put forward by colleagues in regard to amendment Nos. 16 and 17. They are people who have tried to put forward what might look like a better system with more safeguards. They have tried to do the work of delivering things like the presumptions of non-disclosure in a meaningful way and tried to put in safeguards. I recognise the work there.

Our amendments, in comparison, are somewhat simpler. In regard to amendments Nos. 18 and 19, the Minister will know the joint committee on justice spent significant time on this issue. My colleague, Senator Ruane, also sits on that committee. In its pre-legislative scrutiny it consulted the victims and survivors of sexual violence and talked to practitioners and experts. It had the consensus from survivors, practitioners and experts alike that the disclosure of counselling records in sexual offences trials has a hugely traumatic impact on victims and forces them into a qualified decision on whether to pursue justice in relation to their experience of sexual violence or to seek therapeutic support or intervention. The committee's conclusion was that a complete and unconditional ban should be inserted. I know what the Minister has said about such a ban. People have come forward and said why it is a backward step. Even if this was happening previously, the decision to allow it now, in 2026, says that we think this is something that is okay. That sends a signal to all of those who come forward, who spoke to the Oireachtas committees, who have given their testimonies, who talked about the impact of it, and who said what the effect of such disclosure, or the threat of such disclosure, has on them. It sends a negative signal to those who have come forward, not just those who went to the Garda or spoke to their counsellors but also those who walked in the door of the Oireachtas and contributed here. They were brave enough with that third bravery, to not just seek counselling and support and not just seek justice but also to seek the ear of our lawmakers and decision-makers. They did that bravely, the committee listened to them, the committee sent a very clear signal and that signal has not been heard and is not reflected in this legislation.

We propose in our amendments, Nos. 18 and 19, that the substitution of section 19A - I refer to amendment No. 18 - would prevent the disclosure of counselling records as evidence except where it is consented to by the complainant or the victim. We believe the rewording of this section achieves a better balance. It ensures the rights on the interests of the complainant and defendant. The Minister will note that the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, which I spoke to, said the bar is quite difficult. The same bar is being applied to persons who want to speak about their own experience in counselling and those who are seeking access to that individual's private testimony from counselling. I think it is appropriate that there would be a different bar for a person when it relates to their personal data and testimony, much as we saw in relation to the mother and baby homes, where one of the things people wanted was access to their own records of their own testimony of what they said, and for that to be something that could be spoken about and be useful. There is an argument and there may be cases where a person, in relation to their own counselling records, would like to seek disclosure of those records - their testimony and experience. In those circumstances, amendment No. 18 would allow for disclosure.

Amendment No. 19, separately, relates to the disclosure hearings that the Minister proposes to introduce, which would see the court consider on application whether a complainant's counselling records should be included as evidence in sexual offences trials. Our amendment proposes the court should only allow for the inclusion of these records as evidence in a situation where there is a risk to a fair trial. Again, this is a narrowing of it. I still favour a ban on their inclusion and I will be voting accordingly. As a compromise piece, and if the Minister cannot deliver that request for a full and total ban that was put forward by the committee, or indeed the caveat of such personal information only being used with the permission of the person whose information it is, then at a minimum we believe a fairer balance is if it is only to be used in a situation where there is a risk to a fair trial. That is a higher and separate bar.

I do not think this whole provision is in the interests of justice but the "interests of justice", as it is used here, is something that could be very widely construed. Is it that, for example, a person's testimony on their sexual history is going to be attempted to be used as an ameliorating factor? Is it going to be an attempt, in terms of justice, by someone to look for lesser sentencing, to impugn character or imply ambiguity about consent? It is one thing regarding a fair trial to say there is a situation where somebody may be looking to say they believe a solid injustice is being done - there is possibly a case there - or that a fair trial is not being granted, but the interests of justice, in a wider framing, speaks to the risk of these records being used in relation to attempts to impugn the character of a complainant and to create ameliorating or compensatory circumstances around a case. That is a really worrying aspect.

Our preference would be that the Minister would listen to the committee but we have put forward what we believe are reasonable compromise proposals. I also acknowledge the very detailed and nuanced compromise proposals which have also been put forward by other members of the Opposition, all of whom, I think, are seeking to engage in good faith in addressing this issue. They are trying to ensure we do not send a piece of legislation out into the world that will compound the very real feeling of many in this State that they will not be treated fairly if they experience sexual violence.

I thank Senators for the amendments they have put forward and for their contributions. I will start by saying that I understand and acknowledge the depth of feeling that exists on this issue. I have heard it not just on Committee Stage in the Dáil and here and on other Stages. I have heard it from people who have come before me and I am fully aware of the legitimate intensity of feeling that people have in respect of this issue. I wanted to say that at the outset. The more I listen to people, the more I appreciate that intensity, so I have no difficulty in hearing people refer to this on a number of occasions.

There is something I think there is agreement on. The current statutory regime is unacceptable. I was a Member of the House back in 2017 when this was a real issue of concern and we changed the law. Both the Dáil and the Seanad had debates on it. The law was changed and we thought we had resolved the issue of counselling notes being routinely handed over to the defence in sexual assault or rape trials and used in cross-examination. When we saw what happened after 2017, there was a recognition that, notwithstanding the considerable efforts that have been made by the Oireachtas, the measures we introduced in 2017 did not work. That statutory regime is the regime that is in place at present.

That is why we must all accept that that regime in statute is unacceptable. We have since had a judgment of the Supreme Court in the AM case, which has slightly alleviated the circumstances. I am still convinced that we need to change the legislative scheme that operates. Everyone in this House agrees in respect of that.

The amendments before the House are different, in many respects. The Sinn Féin amendment and the amendment proposed by Senator Higgins adamantly suggest that there has to be a ban on counselling notes, whereas Senator Harmon and the Labour Party's amendment do not adopt that position but instead propose a different mechanism to the mechanism I have put forward. It is important to acknowledge that there is a broad difference of views.

I am not standing on my own saying I am the person who says we cannot ban counselling notes. It is recognised by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre that we cannot ban counselling notes. It is recognised by the Labour Party that we cannot ban counselling notes. The advice I have received from the Attorney General is unambiguous on this. Sometimes one receives advice from lawyers, and it is grey and they say, "On the one hand, on the other hand". The advice I have received, which is obviously advice that the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has received, is that a ban on counselling notes will be adjudicated as unconstitutional.

We need to look to see what impact that would have on survivors and complainants before our courts. If I introduced the amendment suggested by Sinn Féin or that advocated by Senator Higgins, we would find ourselves in a situation relatively quickly whereby a person who has been charged and convicted of rape or sexual assault would challenge the legislation on the basis that they had been denied access to a category of evidence they say contained probative evidence that could have been of use in getting an acquittal for them in the proceedings.

If that happens, and if the courts adjudicate that the legislation the Houses of the Oireachtas introduced and enacted is unconstitutional, that would be a devastating consequence for people who are complainants or survivors of sexual assault and rape. I am not prepared, just for the sake of my own political convenience and so that it will reflect well on me, to turn around and agree to ban counselling notes notwithstanding what the Attorney General said. I simply cannot do that.

It is not an issue that people who are not lawyers need legal advice on, because when it comes to this issue there are two rights at stake. On the one hand, there is a right that we have all spoken about and that I want to give priority to, namely the right to privacy of the women and men who go to counselling and have notes generated for the purposes of recording the issues they have identified in the confidential environment of the counselling room. That is a right to privacy that must be respected. It is not an absolute right to privacy.

There are no absolute rights in our constitutional framework. The right to life is not an absolute right because self-defence permits one to deny it. There is the right to privacy on the one hand, and on the other there is the right to a fair trial. I am not criticising people for not mentioning that, but I cannot ignore that. If I ignore that, I would be walking us all into a legislative and judicial minefield because it is a right that is set out in our Constitution. It is provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights and it is recognised in the EU Charter. The right to a fair trial has to be given some recognition by people in the Houses of the Oireachtas when we try to formulate a solution to this.

Section 16 of the miscellaneous provisions Bill sets out a very detailed statutory regime. The one abiding characteristic is that it transfers and moves the balance of those two rights very much in favour of the right to privacy. It does that in a number of ways. First, it is important to point out that I am broadening it from counselling notes to include all personal records. These are factors that will add greater protection to individuals in terms of extending the breadth of the right to privacy. In subsection 6(f) of the section, I have put in place a presumption of non-disclosure. That is how the Attorney General and others have described it to me. It is categorised as a presumption of non-disclosure because it states that: "[A] court shall not, after the hearing referred to in subsection (8), order disclosure of the content of the applicable record concerned to the accused, and where applicable, the prosecutor, unless the court is satisfied" and then sets out some requirements that I will come to.

Any judge interpreting this section will see that there is a statutory imperative set out by the Oireachtas stating that one shall not provide disclosure of these personal records unless one has fulfilled one of the two following requirements: first, that it is relevant to an issue at trial; and second, that not to provide them would create a risk of an unfair trial in the absence of such disclosure. If that was not in the statutory scheme, we would say that we are not going to disclose them even it if it results in an unfair trial.

I again return to the principle of protecting applicable records, as I now call them. In our criminal justice sphere, there is no category of evidence where we say one cannot look at that. We spoke earlier about electronic evidence. Nowhere in our criminal justice system do we say that there is a category of evidence that people simply cannot look at even if there is information in it that is highly relevant and probative and could be beneficial to a person in terms of finding them not guilty of a criminal offence. I cannot ignore it, but that presumption has shifted the balance very much in favour of the right to privacy.

The Bill ensures there is a hearing. The reason the 2017 proposals did not work was because under them there was a provision whereby a complainant could waive the entitlement to have a hearing. Under the new proposal, there must be a hearing. When an application is made by a defence or prosecutor to access what is now an applicable record, a judge must look at the record. We will never have a situation whereby counselling notes, as has happened under the statutory scheme in place, are simply handed over to a defence in a trial and it looks through them and says something is interesting and it will refer to it.

The only time they will now be disclosed is if a judge looks at them and, having done so, says the notes should be disclosed even though he or she is mandated by the Oireachtas not to disclose it, but it should be disclosed is because they come within one of the exemptions. There would be an unfair trial if the judge did not disclose that to the accused or, alternatively, it is in the interests of justice to do so.

The reason the interests of justice is mentioned in the Bill is because in many instances counselling notes are of benefit to the prosecution in a criminal trial. This is something I was not aware of until I had a recent engagement with a different group of survivors, Beyond Surviving, who pointed out how beneficial counselling notes can be to the prosecution. This is something we should not lose sight of because some trials, including a very prominent one in Northern Ireland recently, concern historic offences. It can be of great benefit and advantage to the prosecution and the complainant in such a trial if they can say that something happened many years ago and that there is a record of the complainant stating that it happened in counselling notes from many years ago. Counselling notes from many years ago may corroborate what a complainant is saying now. There are reasons that they may be needed in the interests of justice.

I understand the intensity of feeling about this.

I want the Senator to know that, in the Government, there is a real concern and desire to move this as much as possible towards the right to privacy. I have spoken to the Taoiseach about it. I spoke last week to the Tánaiste about it, who is very concerned to make that sure we do as much as possible. This may be a bold statement to make but I believe that the legislation I have set forward here will solve the problem about which we are concerned, that being, the routine disclosure of counselling notes from the complainant in the trial to the accused. I believe we will not see the misuse of counselling notes in trials the way we have seen it in the past. What I have agreed is that I will do a full review of it after 18 months just to see how it has worked. However, I really believe that the proposals I have set out here are preferable to Senator Harmon's proposal. Being frank, Senator Harmon's proposal is the only one I could give consideration to. I cannot consider the total ban on counselling notes contained in the other amendments. I am conscious that Senator Harmon's amendment, which comes from the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre via Lorcan Staines SC, both of whom I have great respect for, puts forward a scheme that I do not think is as resolute or as effective as the scheme I am putting forward. I am also conscious of the fact that the amendment, which came from Deputy Kelly and the wider Labour Party on Committee State, has changed. In that amendment, there was an independent review panel. I welcome the fact that this has now been removed but it is still not an amendment I should accept. The proposal I have put forward is the most satisfactory one.

I always listen carefully to Senator Higgins and I am very happy to take criticism, but it is inaccurate to state that the legislative proposal contained in this Bill is a backward step. One thing we all agree on is that the current statutory regime is unacceptable. It has to change. The easy thing for me to do is to just move away from this and not change it because it is too controversial and is arousing too much opposition. I am not prepare to let the current statutory regime remain. For that reason, this is not a backward step. It is a very positive step. In contrast to most measures that I introduce, I believe this measure will resolve the problem that all of us want to see resolved.

The backward step I am seeing is in terms of the signal it sends to those who have campaigned and pressed so strongly for the prohibition and greater protection. They do not find the solutions that have been put forward to be adequate. They do not find them to have moved the dial sufficiently and in the same way that is needed. There are two very specific matters that the Minister has not addressed as regards our amendments Nos.18 and 19. If he could come back in on those, it would be useful. I understand that the interests of justice piece is something that might be used by the prosecution but what we are pushing for in amendments Nos. 18 and 19 is the idea that there would be a separate process when a person's own notes are being used. I would love if the Minister could address that issue. This was highlighted as a concern by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. It said that, despite the objections from survivors and front-line services, the Government was removing the waiver that had been in section 19A and was taking agency from persons in relation to their own information. That is an important issue.

What this reminds of is the mother and baby homes and how important it was that people could own information. There is a difference. Potentially, there is an argument to be made on the side of both the prosecution and the defence whereby a person could choose a waiver in respect of their own counselling records, especially now as the Minister expands the provision to other relevant records, too. It could be lots of relevant records. This is especially true for persons who have undergone traumatic situations where to testify and bring evidence forward, they are able to point back exactly to the situations and the context. Someone could say "My records" about the relevant records that belong to them. This is where there is a bit of a difference. The Minister talks about balancing privacy and the right to a fair trial. I would say that there is a wider context of the question of fair trials for victims of violence. It is something the public do not have confidence in.

It is not just about privacy. The Constitution provides for privacy, too, but there is also what we have under GDPR and other things, which is the idea of a person's information. It is not just privacy, but the idea of who owns people's information and their own story. Who owns what they have said to a councillor and their own medical records? Do they belong to a person? As such, should a person decide rather than the State saying that these are records that are out there and it will decide who it believes should be able to have access to their records? There is also the question of ownership of a person's record and story, which particularly matters to victims of sexual violence. We saw in the past that it mattered very much to victims of institutional violence.

One of the things we were getting at - regardless of whether the Minister agrees with the framing of it, I would like his response to this point - was the idea that the person should be able to waive rather than there being a process where a person discloses their own records is something that could be challenged and pushed against. If the Minister had a separate regime in respect of persons using their own records, he would not need to put in that provision, which widens it past a fair trial or the interests of justice piece. Does he understand what I mean? Looking at the two together, he could take the approach of having a mechanism, which we did have in terms of the waiver - that is why this is a backward step from many perspectives - whereby victims of sexual violence could chose to allow their own records to be there rather than being able to apply for their records and their own story to potentially be considered in court. That is the difference. That is the piece that is a bit of a backward step. The Minister is also going through an extra hoop for people to see what someone talked about back in 2005 or 2006 in terms of their records. That is a different piece.

If the Minister had, as the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and others have suggested, allowed for that different mechanism for individuals' own counselling records to be introduced, then he would not have to have such a wider provision in terms of both the fair trial and the justice provision, potentially, as being two routes that would allow records to be used more broadly. Will the Minister comment on why we cannot have that idea of the separate regime in the use of a person's own records?

The reason the 2017 statutory regime did not work is because it provided for a waiver. Senator Higgins refers to it as me now removing agency, but the reason the waiver made the scheme non-workable was because many people - complainants in sexual abuse or rape trials - were told they did not want to go through an interlocutory preliminary hearing to have an assessment as to whether the counselling notes should be handed over and that they should just hand them over. There is a provision under the legislation. I think it was subsection (19), whereby someone could just waive their rights and the notes could be handed over. What was happening, understandably, was that people who wanted to get their trials on as quickly as possible decided that they would hand them over.

Unfortunately, I cannot do both. If I am going to retain a statutory provision that provides for a waiver, we are going to have the same problem as we had before.

What is happening now will put more pressure on the prosecution and, indeed, on the defence. There will have to be a hearing in respect of the applicable records. A judge will look at these and will only decide to disclose them where there is something relevant for the purposes of ensuring a fair trial and in the interests of justice. It will reduce the number of applications. The statutory scheme will make it much fairer.

I am pleased to bring before the House today the Insurance (Disregard of Certain Medical History and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025. As Senators may be aware, this legislation originated as the Central Bank (Amendment) Bill 2025, a Private Member's Bill introduced by Deputy Catherine Ardagh. I take this opportunity to acknowledge and commend Deputy Ardagh on her unwavering commitment in bringing this important issue to national attention. Her sustained advocacy, both in introducing the Bill and in championing it previously in the Seanad, has been instrumental in progressing this matter to its current stage. Her agreement, her work and the commitment in the programme for Government have enabled me to prioritise the progression of this hugely important Bill through the Dáil. Government has made amendments to ensure that it delivers, in a practical and legally robust manner, on its core objective, which is to provide meaningful protections for cancer survivors seeking access to mortgage protection insurance for their principal private residence. The Bill now comes before this House in a strengthened and carefully considered form.

At its heart, this legislation is about something very simple but very profound - fairness and dignity. For many people, completing cancer treatment should mark the beginning of a new chapter. It should be a moment when life begins to open up again, when plans can be made, stability rebuilt and the future approached with hope and confidence. Yet, for too many cancer survivors, barriers persist long after treatment has ended. That is not merely a difficulty; it is a fundamental unfairness. Surviving cancer should not leave someone disadvantaged when trying to access financial services or buying a home. This Bill seeks to address that unfairness. It gives effect to a principle that I believe resonates across this House and far beyond it, which is that a cancer diagnosis should not define a person’s future.

In bringing the legislation forward, I have been guided by a careful and evidence-based approach and through detailed analysis and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, including the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, representatives of the insurance industry, the Irish Society of Medical Oncologists, the Society of Actuaries in Ireland, the Irish Cancer Society, and other member states that have similar measures in place, in order to develop legislation that moves the framework from a voluntary to a legislative footing. The result of that work is the Bill now before the House.

One of the most important developments has been moving from a right to be forgotten to a right to disregard. This is not simply a technical distinction. It is a carefully designed framework that allows insurers to collect information on past diagnoses to ensure transparency and compliance but that does not allow such information to be used to set premiums or deny mortgage protection insurance once eligibility thresholds are met. The disregard approach strikes the right balance between consumer protection, transparency and legal certainty.

The Bill, as amended, provides that, where an individual has completed active cancer treatment and has remained in remission for a period of five years, their cancer history must be disregarded for the purposes of mortgage protection insurance. Five years is internationally recognised as the point at which cancer surveillance intensity often reduces, recurrence risk drops substantially, and patients are frequently considered functionally cured. This standard is supported by the Irish Society of Medical Oncologists and the five-year threshold, regardless of age, is aligned with a number of other EU member states' approaches. It is a step further than the voluntary code of practice, which set the threshold at seven years. I personally wanted to make this improvement and I am pleased to have been able to do so. The Bill, as amended, also ensures that these protections are meaningful in the real world. It increases the level of mortgage protection cover to which the disregard applies to €650,000. Insurers' normal underwriting process shall apply to any amount of mortgage protection insurance cover that exceeds that maximum amount, reflecting the realities of the housing market. Again, this goes further than previous iterations.

Some Senators may ask why the Bill focuses solely on cancer survivors and mortgage protection insurance and does not cover other financial products or medical conditions. The answer is one of prioritisation and pragmatism. In legislation and policy, it is vital to take a stepwise approach, similar to other EU member states, focusing first on where the need is greatest and where there is the clearest evidence base. Mortgage protection insurance is a critical financial product tied directly to one of the most fundamental aspects of life, that is, securing your own home. It is the area where protections are most urgently needed. Expanding the scope prematurely without detailed actuarial and legal groundwork could introduce unintended consequences that could delay protection for cancer survivors or indirectly impact other financial service products and insurance premiums for other consumers. It was prudent of the Government to ensure that these consequences were avoided.

It is important to recognise that this legislation builds on progress already made. The voluntary code introduced by Insurance Ireland in December 2023 demonstrated that change was possible and that the insurance sector was willing to engage constructively. An independent review found that the code was broadly effective but also highlighted its limitations. When it comes to rights, voluntary arrangements can only go so far. This Bill moves away from a voluntary framework to one that provides legal certainty, thereby ensuring consistency, enforceability and protection for cancer survivors. The Bill also incorporates a number of targeted amendments to the wider insurance framework, ensuring that it is fully integrated within the broader regulatory system and aligned with EU requirements. These amendments, while technical, are important in maintaining the strength and stability of the sector as a whole.

Sadly, having lost two siblings of my own, I know only too well the impact cancer has on families.

Many people in this room also know the impact cancer has had on families. Thankfully, today many people today are living full lives after cancer because of the advances in treatment and care. This is really important. If they have come through that journey, then we as politicians and policymakers should do everything we can to help them to move forward, and not place barriers in their path. In essence, public service, at its best, is about addressing real problems in people’s lives and removing barriers where we can. It really is heartening to see such cross-party collaboration in this regard. This legislation cannot undo what people have been through. It cannot lessen the personal journey or the loss that some families have experienced, but it can remove an unjust barrier. It makes life fairer. It can give people a genuine chance to move forward with confidence, hope and dignity. Ultimately, that is what this Bill is about. It is about fairness in the most practical sense. It is about recognising the resilience of people who have overcome one of life’s greatest challenges, and helping to ensure that surviving cancer marks the beginning of a new chapter, not the continuation of unnecessary barriers.

I want to acknowledge the many stakeholders whose hard work, determination and advocacy have helped to shape this legislation, in particular the Irish Cancer Society and Insurance Ireland. I also want to acknowledge the exceptional dedication and work of the civil servants working in this section in my Department, who have been ever so helpful in ensuring we get this legislation to where we are today. I want to thank every survivor who wrote, called or mentioned to me in passing the impact that this legislation would have on their lives and the importance of ensuring it is enacted without delay. I know all Members of the House will support the Bill and will work constructively with us to demonstrate that we stand together for cancer survivors. I look forward to the contributions of Senators and to a constructive and thoughtful debate.

I offer condolences to the Minister of State on the passing of his siblings, one of whom I knew, Matt.

I thank the Minister of State for being here. I have no doubt that aside from his professional commitment to this, it must have a personal impact on him as well. I thank him for prioritising it. My former Seanad colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, was very much to the forefront in drafting a Private Members' Bill. I would like to thank her for all the work she has done. That is not to take away from the Minister of State, Deputy Troy's absolute commitment. He prioritised this and I thank him. This is something I might not have thought too much about, but around three years ago somebody I know very well asked to meet me. His son had come through cancer and had applied for a mortgage. It was only at the final stage of the mortgage that he had a diagnosis. When he went back with this new health update, having received approval in the first place, himself and his girlfriend could not get the mortgage. Obviously, his parents were very concerned for him but also concerned that he could not get on with his life. Recovering from a cancer diagnosis is difficult enough anyway. It was the first time this really struck a chord with me. I had conversations with the Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, at the time because I knew this was something she was thinking about. I was very happy to go back to the said parent. I do not want to mention their names because I have not sought their permission. I felt it would take a lot longer than it did. Very sadly, the young man's cancer came back and he passed away. This is deeply poignant for me. He passed away without knowing that he would have had the chance to have a home and be able to start life afresh.

The Bill that the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, has brought before us now is strengthened and very carefully considered. I thank him for his engagement with all the stakeholders he mentioned. As he said, the legislation is about something that is very simple but so important - it is about fairness and dignity. Thankfully we have so many survivors of cancer now. When you get the good news that you are cancer free, it should be the start of a new chapter and something different. Life should be opening up again, plans can be made and you can rebuild your future and your stability with your loved ones. For many of those who survive, many of the barriers that exist during treatment and diagnosis persist for a long time afterwards. That is fundamentally unfair. Nobody should be left disadvantaged in drawing down a mortgage and buying a house when they have survived cancer. The Bill is seeking to address that unfairness and gives effect to a very strong principle that resonates across everybody. We all know, and I personally know too, the impact that cancer has on families, as indeed does the Minister of State. So many today are living very full lives despite their diagnosis because of the advancements in treatment and care. That is really important to acknowledge. I thank the Minister of State for bringing this Bill before us. We in Fianna Fáil are 100% supportive of it and really glad that this legislation has reached this Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the House. This is very significant legislation. In his introduction, the Minister of State rightly acknowledged the very significant contribution of the former Senator, now Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, and her unwavering commitment, support and determination to see this get into the programme for Government and across the line. I acknowledge her dedication and immense advocacy to see this legislation through. It shows what can be achieved with determination, although of course it also helps when you are in government, to get the hearing. It deserves a proper hearing and full support.

The Minister of State also recognised extensive engagement with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, the insurance sector generally, the Irish Society of Medical Oncology, a significant group of professionals, the Society of Actuaries in Ireland and the Irish Cancer Society. That is important too. It has broad support but all of these particular groupings and professionals bring expertise, which is reassuring to have in any legislation we are going through. I acknowledge that. In particular, I acknowledge the Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, and the present Minister of State, Deputy Troy, who has had his own personal experiences and is rightly determined to see this through. I thank the Government for pursuing this significant legislation.

The Bill seeks to introduce provisions prohibiting financial service providers from discriminating against cancer survivors in the provision of financial services. Central, too, to this legislation is that it enshrines the right to be forgotten for cancer survivors, thereby ensuring they are not unjustly penalised due to their medical history once they have reached a certain post-treatment milestone. Cancer survivorship in Ireland has significantly improved over the last number of decades. That is to be encouraged. The prospects are getting better and better in terms of care for people with cancer. Advancements in medical treatments and the restructuring of cancer care have resulted in increased survival rates. The Bill introduces a new section 69 which prohibits financial service providers from engaging in discriminatory practices based on cancer diagnosis. The Bill also identifies the survivor of cancer based on age at diagnosis and a five-year period without treatment. That is also significant and worthy of acknowledgement. This Bill is similar to provisions that have been enacted in other jurisdictions, and I looked at France, Belgium and the Netherlands today.

We have a very successful model working there. I have no doubt that the departmental officials looked at best practice in other jurisdictions. It has worked and been very positive. The feedback from France, Belgium and Netherlands is significant. It is always good to see a similar operation functioning in other jurisdictions, particularly within the Union.

It is important that people are not locked out of the system due to circumstances that are beyond their control. We always have to be mindful of unintended consequences of any legislation.

I was most taken by the Law Society's summary of this Bill. It was worth reading that important contribution. The society tends to be very analytical in its assessments and it keeps them very simple. That is always a good thing.

The key amendments to this Bill will be the reduction of the remission period from seven years to five years, regardless of age or diagnosis, which is in line with international medical standards for the end of cancer surveillance, and to apply a statutory disregard of certain cancer-related histories in mortgage protection insurance cover up to €650,000. This is an increase from €500,000 to reflect the current housing market. All normal underwriting above the threshold ensures, the Department says, that the measure remains proportionate, sustainable and compliant with EU insurance law and the industry's governance and practices. Provision for a review of the threshold is provided for in this legislation every five years.

I support this very important legislation. I support and commend the Minister of State on driving this legislation through. At the end of the day, this Bill is, of course, about fairness and dignity. The Minister of State will have my full support and, no doubt, the full support of the Independent Members in Seanad Éireann.

I thank the Minister of State for being here to go through this Bill. I am very sorry about his siblings. I did not know that and I thank the Minister of State for sharing that with us.

I want to address the critical importance of the Insurance (Disregard of Certain Medical History and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025, which was formerly known as the Central Bank (Amendment) Bill 2025. The 2025 programme for Government, Securing Ireland's Future, committed to legislate for a right to be forgotten for cancer survivors. Originally introduced as a Private Members' Bill by the now Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, the Bill sought to legislate for a right to be forgotten for cancer survivors and the prevention of financial providers from discriminating against individuals who had completed treatment more than five years previously.

This legislation specifically focuses on the right to disregard cancer-related medical histories in the context of mortgage protection insurance and its enactment is vital for several reasons. First and foremost, this Bill promotes equity for individuals who have faced the challenges of cancer. Historically, those with a cancer diagnosis have faced significant barriers in obtaining mortgage protection insurance. This often results in exorbitant premiums or denial of coverage altogether. By allowing the disregard of certain cancer-related medical histories, we are ensuring that these individuals can secure the necessary financial protection for their homes and families, irrespective of their past health struggles.

Second, this legislation enhances financial stability for families. Home ownership is a cornerstone of financial security and when individuals are unable to obtain mortgage protection insurance due to their medical history, it puts their homes and families at risk. On Monday, I spoke to a lady named Emer from my constituency. She is now five years with the all-clear on her cancer diagnosis. Imagine hearing those words, "All clear." Achieving the five-year cancer-free milestone is one of the most profound and emotional moments a patient or their family can ever experience. Emer rang to say that she really needed this Bill to be enacted quickly. She is ready to buy a house with her partner for her and her family. However, when she got quotes, she was facing €600 per month for mortgage protection. That is ten times the amount she will have to pay when this Bill gets enacted.

For many oncologists, this timeframe is a crucial marker because a cancer that does not return within five years is significantly less likely to ever recur. The Bill empowers those affected by cancer to move forward with confidence, knowing that they can protect their investments and provide for their loved ones. Additionally, enacting this Bill can have a broader implication for our healthcare system. By facilitating access to mortgage protection insurance, we enable cancer survivors to focus on their recovery without the added stress of financial uncertainty. This proactive approach not only supports individual well-being but also contributes to healthier communities overall.

The Bill will ensure increased accessibility. With the elimination of barriers, cancer survivors will find it easier to obtain mortgage protection insurance. It will provide financial security, as it will give protection to families. With the disregard of specific medical histories, survivors may get lower premiums compared to traditional policies that factor in their medical background. This will make mortgage protection insurance more affordable. The psychological relief has to be one of the biggest things, which results in reduced stress. Knowing that they can secure the necessary mortgage protection insurance provides peace of mind for cancer survivors. They can focus on recovery and rebuilding their lives without the constant worry of financial instability related to their housing. The Bill empowers cancer survivors by affirming their right to essential financial products without stigma. It fosters a sense of agency for people in their post-cancer lives.

Regarding public health outcomes, with the encouragement of home stability and with better access to mortgage protection insurance, cancer survivors may be more likely to maintain stable housing, which is a crucial factor for recovery and overall well-being.

The Insurance (Disregard of Certain Medical History and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025 is poised to greatly enhance the ability of cancer survivors to obtain mortgage protection insurance, leading to improved financial security, reduced stress and healthier communities overall. This represents a significant step forward in creating a more inclusive and equitable insurance landscape. By enacting this Bill, we affirm our commitment to inclusivity and support for those who have bravely faced this disease. Let us take this important step together for a fairer and more compassionate society.

I want to say this to everyone, including my two brothers, Alan and Paul, who have bravely fought cancer, to my beautiful friend, Amanda, who battled through her journey, and to Aideen, who would not let her cancer define her: we do not know how strong we are until being strong is the only choice we have.

All that can be said in relation to this has been said, so I will not reiterate all of the points. I acknowledge the work of Catherine Ardagh on this. She championed this cause for so long. I also acknowledge the Minister of State's work in bringing this forward.

People have spoken eloquently about the Bill's importance. There is hardly a family in the country that has escaped the impact of cancer, and my own is no exception. This is primarily about addressing an injustice and one that is all the more acute because it is heaped on people who have come through a critical, tough and life-changing experience and are trying to come out the other side of that.

I acknowledge the work that has been done here and the diligence in engaging with all of the organisations that need to be brought on board for this. At some future stage, I would love to see a further expansion in relation to things like travel insurance and other issues that prevent people from living life to the full following a successful clearance from treatment. Nonetheless, this is a very important start to all of this. We wish it well and will obviously support it fully. It is critical that people out there see that these institutions can be used for the good and protection of people, for righting wrongs and for undoing injustices. This Bill certainly does that, so I wish it well and hope it gets the fair wind it deserves.

I thank the Senators. There is no point in rehashing the issues. It is heartening to see that we can all come together and work collaboratively on legislation that will make a positive difference to so many families. As all speakers, me included, alluded to, this is something that has affected every family in Ireland, unfortunately, down through the decades. Thankfully, because of the focus of medical research, a diagnosis of cancer is not the life-ending diagnosis that it once was. More and more people, having gone through their treatment, are going on to live full, normal lives thereafter. This legislation is enabling that by ensuring that one of the barriers that was there heretofore is removed. People coming through that fight, getting the diagnosis of being cancer free and going on to try to put a life together were hit with another barrier. The Bill is removing that barrier.

It is a very positive development. I particularly want to thank the advocacy groups and the cancer survivors who brought this to our attention and have been so strong in ensuring that we have kept a razor-sharp focus on this. I also thank the officials in the Department because I was like a dog with a bone for the past 12 months in terms of where we were at and moving it quicker. Due to that, and because of the work the now Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, did in the last Seanad and in the early stages of this Dáil, we are here today. It is a positive development. I thank the Members who came into the Seanad to contribute. I look forward to coming back in a few short weeks for Committee and Report Stages. This will enable it to be passed over to the President for signing, which will ensure that those families the Senator mentioned earlier will be able to access fair and affordable mortgage protection so that they can move on with their lives. Go raibh maith agat, Acting Chairperson.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Browne, to the Chamber.

Before I call on the proposer, I welcome New Mexico State Representative Mark Murphy and Tyra to Seanad Éireann. They are on a visit to Ireland and have, of course, been to Kerry and Westport. That is for the Mayo people so that we do not try to dominate the whole tourism market. I thank Mark and Tyra for coming here today.

I welcome the Aire and thank him for coming to the House for the debate. With the agreement of the House, I will share my speaking time with Senator O'Loughlin.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move that:

“That Seanad Éireann:

agrees that:

- strong, empowered local government is a cornerstone of balanced regional development and effective public service delivery;

- local authorities play a critical role in maintaining the public realm, delivering essential services and supporting vibrant communities, yet continue to operate with limited independent revenue-raising powers;

- empowering local authorities with appropriate revenue-raising tools will:

- support well-maintained, vibrant communities;

- enhance Ireland’s appeal as a high-quality tourism destination;

- ensure that economic growth is shared fairly between visitors and residents;

- contribute to sustainable, balanced development across the country;

acknowledges that:

- in areas of high tourism and visitor activity, particularly in urban centres, coastal regions and heritage destinations, local residents experience significant additional pressures;

- these impacts place disproportionate costs on local communities and local authorities, while visitors benefit from local amenities and services;

- tourism is a vital part of Ireland’s economy and must continue to be supported in a sustainable and balanced manner that benefits both visitors and host communities;

- there is a need for sustainable tourism that enhances Ireland’s reputation while protecting the quality of life of local communities;

recognises that:

- many European countries have successfully introduced visitor levies, empowering municipalities to raise funding locally and reinvest it in infrastructure, tourism facilities and public services;

- models in countries such as Italy, the Netherlands, Latvia and Scotland demonstrate that locally determined, ring-fenced levies can enhance the public realm while maintaining strong tourism performance;

- policy discussions at Dublin City Council, and in Ireland more generally, have identified the need for innovative and locally controlled funding mechanisms, including visitor levies;

- a carefully designed visitor levy represents a fair and proportionate application of the ‘user pays’ principle, ensuring visitors contribute to the upkeep of the places they enjoy;

- local authorities, guided by their elected members, are best placed to determine whether and how such a levy should be applied in their areas;

- any such measure must be introduced in a way that protects Ireland’s tourism competitiveness, avoids undue administrative burdens, and reflects local economic conditions and tourism profiles;

calls on the Government to:

- advance enabling legislation to empower local authorities, at their discretion, to introduce a visitor levy on paid overnight accommodation within their areas;

- ensure that such legislation provides maximum local flexibility, allowing elected members to determine:

- whether to introduce a levy;

- the rate and structure of such a levy;

- the geographic scope of its application;

- provide that all revenues raised are ring-fenced exclusively for investment in the public realm and local services;

- require local authorities to undertake robust consultation with residents, local businesses and tourism stakeholders prior to introduction;

- ensure transparency and accountability, including annual public reporting on revenue raised and how it is spent; and

- bring forward a broader programme of reform to strengthen the financial autonomy of local government, consistent with a commitment to balanced regional development and strong local democracy.”

I second the motion.

I thank the Minister for coming to the house for this evening's debate on a Fianna Fáil motion which seeks to give powers to local authorities to have additional revenue raising capacity. The motion is fundamentally about strengthening local democracy and empowering local government by giving it additional revenue-raising powers. At the outset, it is important that I acknowledge that this is an initiative and proposal that is coming from our local authorities.

It is coming from Dublin City Council. I want to acknowledge the Fianna Fáil councillors, led by Councillor Daryl Barron but it was a cross-party group who worked on and brought forward proposals over the past number of years in regard to introducing what is being referred to as a visitor accommodation tax. I want to also acknowledge our colleague in the Lower House, Deputy Paul McAuliffe. He produced a research paper with the assistance of the Library and Research Service on this subject matter and that has really helped to inform and progress the debate. Really what is proposed is driven by those locally elected representatives. Deputy McAuliffe was a former councillor, I was a former councillor, as was Senator O'Loughlin and indeed the Minister, Deputy Browne. Many Senators in this House come from our local authorities and that gives us a unique advantage in understanding the value of local authorities but also the responsibility they have.

City and county councillors are really the public representatives closest to the people who live in their local authority areas. We believe they should be trusted with greater powers and responsibility in terms of their own financial autonomy. We debated at length, when we debated the local democracy task force and other local government issues, how Ireland has a very centralised government system and we are one of the most centralised in Europe when it comes to local government funding. We all know that if we really believe in local democracy, we must believe in giving powers to local authorities and the tools to actually deliver for their communities. This motion is not about central government imposing anything on local government. It is not about prescribing or defining what local government should do. It is about potentially enabling legislation that will enable local authorities to generate revenues. Local authorities play a critical role in maintaining the public realm, the street cleaning, the public lighting and in supporting their communities. Communities that are living in areas that have very high tourist traffic get the value of that tourist traffic but also the additional wear and tear that goes with it. Local representatives do their best. They work hard with council officials day in and day out, as well as with local community groups and local businesses to ensure their local area is well maintained. At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge the concerns the local authority members have been raising and their demand and ask for powers to introduce, potentially, a visitor accommodation tax.

If we are being honest about the debate we also have to acknowledge there are concerns raised by other parties, including businesses and the Irish Hotels Federation in particular. It has highlighted concerns regarding tourism competitiveness and the additional costs for visitors. The administrative burden is one the federation has called out and its members' concerns need to be heard too. They should be given really careful consideration. Tourism is an incredibly valuable part of our economy. It is an incredibly valuable activity for us and we all want to see it continue to grow, to be strong and sustainable and to continue into the future. We have a really high-value tourism offering and we need to protect that also.

However, the purpose of the motion is not to introduce a national visitor levy. It is to allow local authorities, if they wish and if the elected representatives on those local authorities consider it and determine it appropriate for their area, to move forward and introduce a levy. Some local authorities may do it and some will not. That will be a matter for the local authority members and that is how it should be. The decision should rest with local authority members. I believe and I think the local authority members would agree that any revenues that are raised must be ring-fenced for the public domain. They must be ring-fenced for additional street cleaning, additional public space maintenance, additional public lighting and additional amenities for the people living in the area but also those visiting the area. That will be a matter for the local authority members to determine.

I believe the Government should support this request from the local authority members. I believe the Government should respond positively to it and should progress legislation that will give powers to the local authority members. Were that to happen, then I believe there really would need to be a consultation. Many other countries have done this. It operates well in other countries but we need to be conscious we are doing something new. As I said earlier, we have a very valuable tourism offering we do not want to in any way jeopardise. We have come at this from a long debate over many years. With the Minister most recently the local democracy task force has examined the revenue raising powers of local authorities. It has been examined by other bodies. The local authority members themselves have been working on it. It is now time for the Government to trust the local authority members that their demand is real and that it is needed. The Government should move forward and bring forward enabling legislation to create the power and potential - just the power and potential - for local authorities to potentially devise a local visitor accommodation levy for their area and to manage that effectively. I believe this is about strengthening local democracy and our local government. I thank the Minister for his time and look forward to his response.

I thank my colleague Senator Fitzpatrick for proposing this motion, as well as our colleague, Deputy Paul McAuliffe, in the Dáil who has done extensive work on this matter. As Senator Fitzpatrick has outlined, many of the Dublin councillors in particular have been involved in helping to develop a policy that would absolutely support, in their instance, the city of Dublin. What we are proposing here is something that possibly could be brought in right around Ireland. Again, it would be totally up to those who are elected. We would have to trust those elected members and if the people who elect them trust them then, at a national level in government we have to trust the public representatives and the councillors.

This is an important motion and essentially it is about ensuring we can give to local authorities at their discretion that possibility of introducing a visitor levy on paid overnight accommodation within their own jurisdictions. I know this would be something that could appeal particularly to cities but possibly to smaller areas that have a very large tourist population that comes on an ongoing basis. When we look at some of the examples around Europe, at least 18 European member states have allowed such charges and it has certainly helped to develop facilities in those areas. That has grown in recent years and many of us will have had the experience of staying outside of the EU and paying a city tax as well. There are multiple examples of how this has been put to good use and has brought a lot of revenue back to those particular areas.

Within this motion, we have pointed out that countries such as Italy, the Netherlands, Latvia and Scotland have demonstrated that locally determined, ring-fenced levies can enhance the public realm while maintaining strong tourism performances. Wales is actually looking at this measure very strongly at the moment. It is fair to say that a carefully designed visitor levy represents a very fair and proportionate application of the user pays principle. It ensures visitors contribute to the upkeep of the places they enjoy. It is very important to state that in a municipal district or at a local authority level where this would be introduced, our suggestion is the money that would be forthcoming should be ring-fenced for investment in tourist infrastructure and services, enhancement of the public realm - we have seen a lot more money going into that since Covid; it is really important - cultural sporting and heritage events people will travel for, sustainable tourism initiatives and other purposes related to the impact of tourism.

It would not be a case of this money being taken in and just going into the finances or being swallowed up in a black hole, for want of a better phrase. There would be a dividend paid back to the residents in the area by means of the enhancement of the facilities. There would also be a dividend for tourists. When I am abroad and have to pay a city tax, I genuinely never mind. It is always minimal. We know that this money is going into the beautification of the places in which we are staying.

As outlined by Senator Fitzpatrick, a key part of the motion is where it states, "local authorities, guided by their elected members, are best placed to determine whether and how such a levy should be applied in their areas". We would say that it is absolutely the elected members who should make the decision in this regard. It should not be an executive decision. This must be led and driven by local authority members. Some of them will decide that it is not appropriate in the areas in which they live. That is fair enough, because everybody should have the opportunity to make decisions that are in the best interests of their towns or cities. We contend that local authority members are best placed to determine whether and how a levy of this nature should be applied in their areas.

That, basically, is the nuts and bolts of it. We really appreciate that the Minister has taken the time to be here. He is a huge supporter of local government and has worked really hard with the local democracy task force. We are looking forward in anticipation to what will come from the latter. Strengthening local authorities and listening to the people on the ground is, essentially, the basis of a lot of our work and what we do. We look forward to seeing this implemented.

Before I call on the next speaker, I welcome Declan and Cliodhna Deegan, Gerry, Isobel and Jodie Carter, Jim Fitzsimons, Alan MacGinty and Michael and Niamh Duffy. They are here as guests of Deputy Cormac Devlin, Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

I welcome the Minister and acknowledge Senator Fitzpatrick's initiative in tabling this motion. That is where positivity ends, however.

Ah now.

I am wholly opposed to this because of my experience of what it actually means in this city. The reason for my opposition is because Dublin City Council is, I regret to say, a bit of a financial disaster area. It is spending its huge budget of €1.6 billion every year. Last year, in a cynical deal designed to get Fine Gael the lord mayorship, it decided that it would increase local property tax by 15% in the context of the discretionary reduction that councillors are allowed to use. Right across the entire area of its functions, the council seems to be failing. The streets are in a very poor state of repair. The amount of additional social housing being provided by Dublin City Council is very poor. The state of repair of much of their existing housing stock is very poor.

On top of that is the almost incredible news that the council's offices on Wood Quay, which were erected in very controversial circumstances 30 years ago, are to be demolished. The reason they are be demolished is, we are told, that somebody has worked out that it would cost €500 million to make them compliant with EU targets for zero-emission buildings. Somebody invented that figure, which has been put out there to justify what the council intend to do instead of making its offices habitable. The council decided to buy a half-completed structure at a derelict site at Camden Yard on Kevin Street approximately half a mile from its existing offices and build new offices there. In addition, it proposes to provide workspace for 2,800 employees at its new offices in circumstances where many of those who observe what happens in the existing offices wonder how many of the staff actually work from home at any given time. That is the way Dublin City Council is working - or not working.

Even more incredible is the council's attention to spent €600 million on this new town hall. It will also have to spend God only knows what on the redevelopment of the Wood Quay site. Even demolishing it will cost many millions. Building anything new there will cost even more. Then we will be back to what happens to the remains of the Viking settlement underneath it. All of this has been left up in the air. We are told that €10 million euro is going to be spent between now and opening of the new building in refurbishing the old building the council has committed to demolish. What kind of people are those involved that they think they can get away with spending more than €500 million on new offices for themselves because they say that it would cost €500 million to make their existing offices compliant with European climate emissions targets? I find all of this grotesque. I look the amount of dereliction across Dublin city. I look at the failure of Dublin City Council to enforce the laws in relation to dereliction. Some of the properties it owns are derelict. Some of those it has acquired are derelict. I look at the council's failure to engage in proper constructive planning in the city centre, and then I am asked to believe that all of this makes economic sense.

The levy - and it depends on whether it will be €1, €2, €3, €5 or €10 per bed per night in Dublin - is supposed to ensure, in Senator Fitzpatrick's terms, that visitors pay for the upkeep of the city they are visiting. They are already paying for it in vast sums just as the people who go to Killarney or Tralee pay for the viability of what happens there. Just take them out of the equation and see who is paying for what. Tell the hoteliers in Killarney, Tralee or wherever that their customers are not paying for what happens in those places. We are supposed to believe that tourists are somehow freeloading in Dublin, a place where hotel prices are already massive. Do we want to have this kind of additional charge made to create a fund which, as Senator Fitzpatrick states, has to be ring-fenced? I do not believe in this ring-fenced nonsense. I know what will happen. Just like the local property tax, it will be taken into account in the annual disbursement of funds by the Custom House to the various local authorities.

The case for this has not been made. The case for an additional taxation measure of this kind being handed to local authorities has not been made. The real kernel of the problem with local government is that we do not have local democracy. Rather, we have local administration. Councillors, to whom Senator Fitzpatrick paid such a generous tribute, are, in fact, not really in charge of the activities of Dublin City Council. Unless and until we radically change our local democracy laws, measures such as this to create additional revenue streams are unjustified and counterproductive and proceed on the basis of the untrue assertion that tourists do not contribute to the local economy on which Dublin City Council depends.

The Minister is welcome to the Chamber. I commend Senator Fitzpatrick and her Fianna Fáil colleagues on tabling this motion. The first line reads, “a cornerstone of balanced regional development”. It was only last week we had a discussion and I called for more balanced regional development. I come from the north west, and we always feel that we do not get our fair share. We need a lot more investment to deliver the infrastructure we require. In the past three weeks, I had the Minister for tourism, Deputy Burke, in my home county of Roscommon and we visited Strokestown House and gardens. We visited the Arigna Mining Experience in the north of the county. We went to the John McGahern Barracks in Cootehall and finished up in Lough Key Forest and Activity Park for the Night and Day Festival. None of those locations has a hotel, so while we have the tourist attractions, a significant amount of work would need to happen for a county like Roscommon to benefit from a levy like this.

I support the idea of empowering our local authorities and councillors but I would err and agree slightly with what the previous speaker said in relation to the executives in our local authorities and the whole idea of ring-fencing a fund. It is okay to ring-fence it right now, but we all know the practical implementation varies when it comes to management and hiding things away in the books within our local authorities. This needs to be teased out and worked on an awful lot more.

Before I was a councillor on Roscommon County Council, I was a member for 12 years of a town team. We were established for public realm development and local promotion, effectively putting the best part of our local communities out and trying to access the many capital funds that thankfully are out there to ensure that we have the public realm enhancement, amenities and resources that we need locally to have our communities operating as best they can. Once we get areas to that stage - I do not feel we are at that stage yet - I would like the local authority to be in a position to introduce a measure like this to enhance and maintain them.

One of the reasons parts of rural Ireland do not have an abundance of bed nights is the cost of developing a room to a sufficient standard to meet what the paying visitor will be prepared to pay. The people who take the punt on that pay significant development charges and, on an annual basis, significant rates. To say we would like them to use this money for clean streets and a few other public realms effectively means that we are just trying to generate a little bit more money and give the local authorities the opportunity to claw in a bit more money for them to spend as they see fit. That is the part I support, namely, giving local authorities that wish to do so the opportunity to introduce this, but rather than legislating for this, there is a very good example of a development fee in Knock Airport. Knock Airport does not take in enough fees from airlines to support the running of the airport. Therefore, every passenger who passes through Knock Airport pays a charge. That charge is paid at the local authority.

What about Michael O’Leary?

He pays it too, actually.

Businesses in major cities and other urban spots that have tourism footfall are already paying substantial rates. They are paying for services that they should already be receiving.

I am going to go back to the top line again, which is regional development and delivering the infrastructure that we need. I would love a further discussion on this to potentially look at a development fee being introduced in our major airports. I had this conversation with my colleagues, especially Senator Páraic Brady from Longford. We have thrashed this out. Potentially, the metro north could be paid for in a very short period of time with the introduction of a development fee like this, and because that is already under way in Knock Airport, we should not have to legislate as much for it to be introduced in other areas.

We are not letting the local authorities off the hook in terms of the moneys they are taking in in rates, but we are empowering the potential development of infrastructure that we all know is much needed.

I support the motion and its wording. Obviously, we will have to thrash out the legislative side a little bit more, but I compliment the Senator and her colleagues on bringing this forward.

Before I call Senator Andrews, I welcome the guests of Senator Clonan from the Trinity retirement club. I also welcome the guests of Senator Joe O'Reilly.

I thank the Minister for attending. I agree with Senator McDowell's comments on the civic offices in Camden Yard. He made a number of various points on it, and all were very fair.

I have a real concern about the way the funding was put in place for all of that. It felt like it was overnight, but as I have said before and will continue to say, funding for the redevelopment of flat complexes around the city has not been as quick to be found. Pearse House is one example. It is disappointing that the Minister has not met the residents in the Pearse House group, who have done huge work over many years. Nearly €500 million for the civic offices was found overnight, yet residents have had to fight tooth and nail to get the flats brought up to any sort of standard.

Residents in the flat complexes in social housing feel that they are paying the price for the redevelopment of Camden Yard and the civic offices in the form of increased rent. The Minister would not believe how many people are really struggling with the increase in rents. Some have to pay an increase of up to 25%. It is hard to believe that the biggest landlord in the country can put up its rent by 25%. A private landlord would rightly not be allowed to do that. The residents are not getting anything for it either. They see no improvement in their living conditions. In fact, the regeneration plan for Pearse House was watered down to just a deep retrofit. This means that the flats are not going to increase in size. Neither the bedroom nor bathroom sizes are going to increase.

There is going to be overcrowding because there are not enough houses being built. There are 18,000 people on the homeless lists. It is really frustrating for residents that they are paying significantly higher rents without seeing any benefit for it while the local authority and the Government can arrange to fund the redevelopment of Camden Yard and the council offices. Some would say that is not necessary. Senator McDowell made the point that it was not proven that that was required. It is really hard for residents to understand why they are being expected to live in substandard conditions for decades - for generations - when the money can be found overnight to refurbish civic offices at Camden Yard.

I wanted to make that point. That said, I thank the Government Senators for submitting this motion. It is a motion we support. I would like to think that the Government Senators will go down to their parliamentary party meeting and convince the relevant Ministers to introduce it. I remember being on Dublin City Council eight or nine years ago where I heard Government councillors talking about this then. Why is it taking this long? I heard the Ministers, Deputies Chambers and Browne, saying they are open to the idea of this proposal. It is all very well to say they are open to ideas like this. We believe it is a good idea. Others differ. However, Ministers are saying they are open to considering it and making amendments. That is a long way from implementing it. As I said, when I was on Dublin City Council we used to hear councillors regularly talking about how important it is. Ten years later, we are still waiting. Forgive me for being sceptical. I just do not see this going anywhere under this Government. It is important. Senator McDowell said that neither local authorities nor elected representatives have the power. This would give power to elected members if it was implemented as proposed. That would be welcome. It is important that such a scheme would be introduced.

We support the motion but we have reservations that the proposed levy should not target those who are travelling within the country and those who are not tourists, in particular people attending hospital visits, such as a person up from Kerry visiting the children's hospital. If they are staying in a hotel, they should not have to pay that tax. It should only apply to those with a residency outside of Ireland to ensure Irish people are not penalised for travelling for treatment and to encourage staycations.

I welcome the Minister. He is always very welcome in the House. It is great to see him here. I will make a few observations in relation to this matter. I thank Senator Mary Fitzpatrick for suggesting this amendment. She has a strong record in local government. I have worked on the joint Oireachtas committee on housing, planning and local government with her. I take her seriously when it comes to local government because she has a track record in local government. I acknowledge that.

This proposal is premature for a number of reasons. We are still waiting for the local government task force. I do not want to make decisions on a piecemeal basis when I do not see the whole entity of what this local government task force is. It is on the Minister's desk and has been on the desk of the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins. A report and recommendations are due to come. They are going to the Cabinet. I might be wrong but the Minister might touch on that in his response.

There is some suggestion that it is just Americans or well-to-do tourists who come here but every person in rural Ireland, be they from Enniscorthy or County Kildare, who comes to Dublin will be paying this tax regardless of their income. I am not sure about that. I am not sure about the equity of it. I am conscious that there are a number of nominating bodies to the Seanad. I have spoken to the Irish Hotels Federation and to Dublin business interests. The chamber is a great advocate for business in Dublin and to varying degrees there are concerns. The Irish Hotels Federation and the Vintners Federation of Ireland have clearly conveyed to me that they are totally opposed to this legislation. I had expected that voice might be heard here tonight, but clearly not so far. That is interesting because I know they are looking in here tonight. They are fully aware of this proposal and are actively monitoring it, as is their right.

We are also talking about collecting a tax when we have local government, particularly in Dublin city, that has been unable to collect the derelict site levy. The Government is now suggesting it will transfer that from a levy to a tax. Why a tax? That is because there is now a great expectation that the Revenue Commissioners will collect it. The Revenue Commissioners seem to be the source of all collection for everything for the Government. That is an issue. There is not a strong track record in local government in terms of the collection of levies or, indeed, taxes. That is an issue.

We talk about the offer. What are the benefits here? We know that people are paying local property tax. The marketing around the local property tax when it was first introduced suggested that we would have new swimming pools, new ball alleys, new tennis courts and everything. Places would be clean, with roses going up and down the paths. That did not happen. We are paying a local government tax. People pay central taxes to Revenue. Businesses pay VAT and rates. Employers pay PAYE and meet the cost of employing people. The hotel sector and the hospitality sector are crucial for this city.

It is important to remember that we need local government reform. The Minister is ultimately responsible for that. I do not doubt his commitment. At best, we have local government administration. We have the most centralised local government in Europe. The Minister knows that and I know that. As the Cathaoirleach knows from some of the documents that were submitted as part of the Seanad public consultation on local democracy, when we heard from other jurisdictions and experiences, we have the most centralised local government structure in Europe. I have no doubt about that. I am in favour of subsidiarity and of local authorities raising local revenue that is retained locally. I am not in favour of some sort of ring-fenced funds whereby whatever is collected - X millions of euro - comes off your central subvention from central government. I have an issue about that.

I want more devolved powers in local government. However, until we see what the Minister is suggesting as part of the local government task force, we do not know what is being proposed. We simply do not know. The Minister may be able to tell us today. If he cannot tell us the content of the report, he might give us a signal here today. I think everyone here has been a county councillor, or most of us have. We have a huge interest in the local government sector. The local authority city and county councillors principally make up a lot of the electorate for Senators. Our fingers are on the pulse and we have an interest. We also live in local communities and in municipalities. We understand how it all operates.

I know where the Minister is coming from. I know he is giving his best effort on this. However, I do not believe it is fully teased out. I am not suggesting he said it has been fully teased out. He made the point that it is about empowering local councils to make local decisions. However, it is better to have it right than to have mixed messages. Earlier on, somebody talked about the airport in Kerry. Someone has suggested - no one has suggested it here - that there might be an additional €5 levy on every flight coming to Dublin. What revenue would that give Dublin city? It would certainly be easier to administer than the levy being proposed. However, that is not before us here today.

We have to be proactive and tease out more on these issues. The vintners are concerned, employers in Dublin are concerned, and members of the chamber and various representative business bodies in the city are concerned. People from rural Ireland who want to come to the capital city will be paying this tax. Remember what we are doing here. We are putting a tax on everybody, including Oireachtas Members - I have no problem with that - who come to Dublin to stay in accommodation in Buswells Hotel or up the road. Everybody who comes to our city is going to pay this tax.

I will finish on this. Let us go back to the kernel of the issue. We will never have true local democracy if we do not have proper, open, transparent and equitable funding for local government. I have spoken to councillors. No one has asked me or attempted to convince me to come here tonight to support this proposal. I do not know how many people actually know about it. It is right to have a debate. I always welcome a debate in relation to local government. I particularly welcome a debate with the Minister, who is ultimately responsible for driving local government. He might share with us something of the progress and the timeframe for the local government task force, which all of our more than 900 councillors would hope to hear about too.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht teacht isteach don díospóireacht seo. I commend Senator Mary Fitzpatrick on bringing this conversation to the House. It is good to have it. Similar to Senator Boyhan, I was a councillor. One of the biggest frustrations I had was the lack of power councillors had at local level to run their own local authorities. I found it very frustrating, in particular in terms of county development plans, local area plans and things being overridden by the Government after local consideration had been given to matters that would affect one local area. Any measure that gives more power to bring money into an area is a positive step.

I do not think any local authority member would ever envisage or countenance introducing a measure that would damage the local economy. That is something we need to remember. No levy will be placed on a business that puts a business out of business. I would not see it happening. If there was ever a danger of it happening, local authority members would be lobbied so hard that they would double back on the measure very quickly and make sure that the right thing was done.

I want to speak strongly in favour of the motion. It is a good idea from Senator Fitzpatrick. Anything that gives power back to local authorities and members to administer the running of their local authorities is a good idea and I want to speak in favour of it.

I thank Senators Fitzpatrick and O'Loughlin for bringing forward the proposal and the Fianna Fáil group of Senators for putting the motion down for debate. The motion will not be opposed by the Government. I thank colleagues for all of their contributions to what I consider to be an important discussion, not just in the sense of a tax or levy but rather the wider discussion around local government.

The motion calls on the Government to advance enabling legislation to empower local authorities, at their discretion, to introduce a visitor levy on paid overnight accommodation in their areas. As Members of the House are aware, the funding system that applies to local authorities in Ireland is quite complex. Local authorities derive their income from a variety of local sources, including commercial rates, the local property tax and charges for goods and services. There are also a number of external income sources, including funding from central government and borrowing.

The circumstances of local authorities also vary considerably in terms of geographic area, population density, service needs and the ability to raise their own income locally. Local authorities continue to operate in a challenging environment, with population increases leading to a greater demand for infrastructure and services and a cost base that is increasing at a faster rate than the ability to raise income locally.

A fundamental prerequisite for effective local democracy is that plenary councils have a strong measure of financial power and discretion and corresponding responsibility for locally raised income funds, the operation of local authorities and core service provision. Expenditure is determined by councillors at the annual budget meeting. On average, in 2024 nearly 50% of local authority revenue income was generated locally. This means that any consideration of sources of income that can be raised and disposed of locally is of great significance for local democracy.

Visitor accommodation levies are becoming a more common feature of cities and sub-national authorities across Europe. This trend is driven by financial pressures and high levels of tourism. At present, in Ireland neither central government nor local authorities have the power to levy overnight stays for visitors. Primary legislation will be required to enable this. In recent times, and in light of the growing trend internationally, there have been increased calls in a variety of fora for the introduction of such a charge in Ireland.

The report of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare in 2022 recommended the introduction of an accommodation tax in Ireland. In June 2025, the Government noted the report of the interdepartmental group on the Dublin city task force report and approved the overall process set out in the roadmap for the delivery of the Dublin city task force report. This report recommended that a detailed proposal for an accommodation tax at national level, applicable to all local authorities on an opt-in basis, be developed by the Departments of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Finance and Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

Work on the development of the proposal on a visitor levy is already under way as part of implementing the roadmap. In addition, I established the local democracy task force in 2025, which has examined new sources of income for local authorities, as well as ways that existing source of income could be optimised as a means of enhancing the level of income raised locally.

One of the proposals examined was the power to enable local authorities to levy a charge on overnight stays in their area. As part of the stakeholder consultation process undertaken by the local democracy task force, it is notable that a number of consultees, including ICTU, the University of Galway and the University of Limerick, called for Irish local authorities to be permitted to charge a tourism tax. In respect of the local democracy task force, its report and recommendations regarding reforming and strengthening the sector are expected to be brought to Government for consideration and decision in the coming weeks.

More broadly, enabling local authorities to levy a charge on overnight stays in an area is in line with the principle of subsidiarity espoused by the EU and Council of Europe. It is also in line with recommendations of the 2023 report monitoring the application of the European Charter of Local Self-Government in Ireland that Ireland increase the amount of own resources that can be used at the discretion of local government. Ireland has signed and ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government governance. Fiscal autonomy is the extent to which local government can independently tax its population and in itself is an important measure of local autonomy and self-government. Enabling local authorities to levy a charge on overnight stays in their area would be a significant measure to improve their fiscal autonomy. All of this context is to demonstrate that there is a convergence of various drivers and a momentum pointing to now being an appropriate time to consider this proposal in Ireland.

A visitor levy is a well-established charge in many cities and countries. It ensures that visitors who directly benefit from the use of local services and public infrastructure contribute to their costs and upkeep. A visitor levy would be additional revenue from outside traditional sources which can be ring-fenced to improve local facilities for tourists and locals alike. Charges of this kind are frequently imposed in cities with strong tourist economies in countries such as Canada, Spain, Germany, Belgium and France. The use of such a levy, in international examples, provides the funds that support green spaces, clean streets, visitor facilities, local communities, preservation of monuments and public transport.

Scotland and Wales are similar jurisdictions to Ireland and both recently passed legislation that enables local authorities to introduce a charge on overnight stays. In fact, having passed primary legislation in 2024, Edinburgh will be the first Scottish authority to apply a levy on overnight stays starting next month. Any framework that enables local authorities to charge a levy on overnight stays in their area should be designed in a way that works for residents, businesses and visitors alike. Such a levy should be simple but fair in design to help minimise any potential negative impacts. It should have a positive impact on local areas that choose to use a levy by generating revenue to support local areas, thereby enhancing the reputation of the destination, increasing local autonomy and supporting the visitor economy overall.

There are obviously a wide range of issues which call for close examination and broad consultation prior to developing such a legislative framework to enable a visitor levy, including the power of elected members to determine whether to introduce a levy in their area. Other areas for consideration include the extent of influence of a local authority on the rate and geographic application of the levy, the scope of the application of the levy in terms of category of accommodation and visitors and a collection mechanism that is cost-effective, administratively efficient and as easily enforceable as possible. The local consultation and stakeholder engagement that is required to be undertaken by a local authority in advance of the introduction of such a levy, any limits on the areas of expenditure supported by income raised by the levy and reporting on income and expenditure raised to ensure transparency for all must also be taken into account.

I have considered it very important that the decision on whether to apply a visitor levy in a local authority should be a decision of that local authority, meaning its elected members. As seen from the experience in other jurisdictions, the introduction of an accommodation tax or visitor levy requires careful planning and extensive engagement with stakeholders. It would require close co-operation between various Departments, as outlined earlier. It would also require substantial consultation.

Even if the enabling provisions are enacted in primary legislation, as we have seen from the Scottish example, the timelines involved prior to the introduction of a levy on the ground can be challenging. As I referred to earlier, in 2025 the Government noted the report on the roadmap for the delivery of the Dublin city task force report, including a recommendation that a detailed proposal for an accommodation tax at a national level be developed. Work on the development of such a proposal on a visitor levy is already under way as part of the implementation of that roadmap. As I said, the local democracy task force also recommended that consideration be given to that by the Government. I look forward to engaging in on this important issue across Government as the proposal is developed.

I thank the Minister for his response. I thank all of the Senators for their engagement on the debate. This House is largely elected by local authority members and it would be remiss of us not to dedicate some of our agenda and time to debating an issue that, as Senator Andrews alluded to, has been debated for ten years.

It is not coming out of nowhere. As the Minister outlined, it has been the subject of many independent studies and forms part of proposals from the city task force and the local democracy task force. I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of the requirement and the request, and his positive response to it. Senator McDowell may be the only Senator here who did not serve on a local authority, so he is at somewhat of a disadvantage.

I am objective.

He may be that. However, we are all residents in the city, or at least those of us in Dublin, and it is very easy to be critical. I am often critical of Dublin City Council. The House has heard me criticise the council at times so I think I can be objective too. However, fair is fair. It would be wrong for us to end this debate without accepting, as was mentioned, that €1.6 billion of an annual budget is enormous. However, Dublin City Council is not some rogue organisation operating without any checks and balances and it is not fair to disparage our local authority members or devalue or discredit them in any way. They have a very significant task. I have oftentimes raised with the Minister the need for additional resources for our local authority members so that they can hold the executive to account. It does not just fall on our local authority members. We do have independent audit services. Dublin City Council is subject to an independent audit. There is the local government audit services and the national oversight and audit committee. There are public spending rules. Dublin City Council is not operating in some vacuum. It is important to put that on record as well.

Regarding Camden Yard, we could pick many projects. I am not here to defend Dublin City Council's management. What I am hear to debate is a request to Government to bring forward legislation to potentially give the power to local authorities, not just Dublin City Council, to introduce a visitor accommodation tax. We should keep to that debate. There are many issues that we could be debating in terms of local government and not just Dublin City Council. I also acknowledge that while the council certainly needs to up its game in terms of the street cleaning and it needs to introduce the power washing, it has actually made some changes and it is trying. I commend the waste management staff who are out there. Part of what this would do is to allow for an increased focus on the public domain, the public spaces, the greening of the city, our parks, and on creating youth spaces and accessible spaces. These are all really important interventions for a living city - for the city to be vibrant and to be living. It was acknowledged and was raised, something I did myself, that there will be concerns about this. I refer to the Irish Hotels Federation, the vintners and others. The chambers of commerce has done a survey of its members. I think it is 44% that have said they would potentially support a visitor tax.

The Minister acknowledged in his response that this will have to be well planned and there will have to be extensive consultation. That is absolutely the case. It must be well planned. There must be extensive consultation. It would be perverse for any of us to suggest that any local authority and the local authority members would willfully vote to introduce a tax that is going to undermine their own local economy. If we are to accept that logic, are we saying they are stupid, incompetent or negligent? I do not think our local authority members elected to Dublin City Council are any of those things. They are people who have put themselves forward, have been elected by their communities and are there to represent them. When they ask for this, they are not asking for it on a whim. Rather, it is something that has been debated at length for more than a decade. The response of Government is positive and correct. Government should move forward in a detailed, controlled and planned way to allow for this concept to be tested and developed. I thank the Minister for his time. I thank his Department for the work it is doing on this and I look forward to us progressing it over the coming months.

Vótáil.

Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?

As fewer than five Members have risen I declare the question defeated. The names of the Senators who stood will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow at 9.30 a.m.

Is that agreed? Agreed.