Dáil Éireann passed the Public Health (Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products) (Amendment) Bill 2026 on 24 June 2026, to which the agreement of Seanad Éireann is desired.

Dáil Éireann passed the National Treasury Management Agency (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 on 24 June 2026, to which the agreement of Seanad Éireann is desired.

The Cathaoirleach has received notice from the following Senators that they propose to raise the following matters:

Senator Teresa Costello - The need for the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to make a statement on the measures in place to assess the effectiveness of public consultation processes conducted under the Part 8 planning applications and section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1994.

Senator Gareth Scahill - The need for the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to make a statement on plans to review and expand the housing adaptation grant scheme.

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 submissions.

Senator Eileen Lynch - The need for the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance to make a statement on introducing targeted budget measures to halt closures of rural pubs.

The matters raised by the Senators are suitable for discussion. The Cathaoirleach has selected Senators Costello, Scahill, Kennelly and Lynch and they will be taken now.

Before proceeding with the Order of Business, I have the pleasure to welcome Ambassador Marn to the Distinguished Visitors Gallery. Today we mark Slovenia's national day, celebrating the country's declaration of independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, a milestone that reaches its 35th anniversary this year.

Ireland and Slovenia enjoy warm and longstanding relations. Ireland recognised Slovenia on 15 January 1992 and opened our embassy in Ljubljana in October 2001. Our ties deepened further when Slovenia joined the European Union at a ceremony in Dublin during Ireland's EU Presidency in 2004. In recent years our co-operation has grown through each country's term on the UN Security Council where Ireland and Slovenia have worked together to promote peace and prevent conflict.

Our cultural and economic links continue to strengthen. As members of the EU Single Market, both countries benefit from close economic co-operation. More Irish students are choosing to study at the university at Ljubljana. Irish culture - our music, dance and literature - remains popular across Slovenia. A particularly charming connection is the memorial plaque to James Joyce at Ljubljana train station marking the night he unexpectedly spent there in 1904. Slovenia itself is also becoming an increasingly popular destination for Irish visitors.

I extend my warmest wishes to Ambassador Marn and to the Slovenian community in Ireland. I also welcome the ambassador's staff from the embassy who accompany him here today for this very happy Statehood Day. In my best Slovenian: Vesel Dan državnosti. I apologise if I have mispronounced it, but happy Independence Day and enjoy your day. Thank you very much indeed.

I too welcome the Slovenian ambassador. It was lovely to meet him and of course his team. I know that when James Joyce lived in the nearby city of Trieste, there were many visits across the border. I spent a night or two in Slovenia - not unexpectedly - and had a really lovely experience. Happy Independence Day to all of you and to all the Slovenians who live here in Ireland.

The Order of Business today is Nos. 1 and 2, motions regarding the continuance of certain provisions of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, No. 39 of 1998, and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, No. 32 of 2009, to be taken at 11.30 a.m. or on conclusion of the Order of Business, whichever is the later, and to conclude after 90 minutes if not previously concluded, with the motions to be discussed together with the time allocated to the opening remarks of the Minister not to exceed six minutes, group spokespersons not to exceed six minutes, and all other Senators not to exceed six minutes, time can be shared, and the Minister to be given no less than six minutes to reply to the debate; No. 3, Domestic Violence Judgments Register Bill 2026 - Committee and Remaining Stages, to be taken at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 3 p.m., if not previously concluded; No. 4, Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026, changed from Criminal Law and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 - Committee Stage (resumed), to be taken on the conclusion of No. 3, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5 p.m. by the putting of one question from the Chair which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Government.

Before I call Senator Fitzpatrick, I welcome the pupils from St. Patrick's National School from Bray who are guests of the Tánaiste. I hope you enjoy your visit here today. I know you are coming to the end of the school term, but it is customary here to say there is no homework for the rest of the week. I am sure you are getting your holidays tomorrow anyhow. Enjoy your visit. You are very welcome.

I join the Leas-Chathaoirleach and the Leader in welcoming the ambassador and the staff from the embassy. I wish them and all Slovenians everywhere a very happy Independence Day. The girls from Bray are very welcome too.

Yesterday the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Drugs Use launched its final report. The report is a culmination of nine months of work, with 25 public meetings and many more private meetings, not all of them harmonious and many of them quite contentious. We had 150 witnesses and out of those expert witnesses and that lived experience we have brought forward 161 recommendations. I thank everybody who worked with us and everybody who worked on the committee. We worked very constructively. I believe that our report is a comprehensive report and gives strong recommendations that will help guide us to move even further towards a health-led response to drugs and addiction. There are 161 recommendations and unsurprisingly the one recommendation that has caught the headlines, of course, is the decriminalisation of drugs. There is a level of alarmist commentary on it. In a certain respect I really welcome that because it means our report is provoking discussion and it is provoking debate. The report needs to be read in the round. The report needs to be considered in the round. The report needs to be engaged with. I would appreciate if the Leader would arrange a debate in this House on that report so we can have a constructive debate on how we achieve a health-led approach.

I wish everyone a very happy Pride weekend. Pride is going to fill our city and country with colour this weekend. It is a moment for us to celebrate our LGBTQI community.

I recognise the incredible work done by representative organisations like Outhouse, Belong To and LGBT Ireland. I wish to take a moment for us to stop and think about all of those who struggle, have struggled and continue to struggle, and be mindful of that. More importantly, over the weekend, enjoy Pride safely and in an inclusive way. Here in Dublin, Dublin Pride is leading with the parade. It will take place on O'Connell Street from 12.30 p.m. on Saturday, and I encourage everybody to get out, enjoy it, and celebrate all it is to be in Ireland and of the LGBTQI community.

I acknowledge and welcome the ambassador of Slovenia and his team to the Public Gallery.

We had a discussion on the way in about extreme weather events. I want to raise the extreme weather events we are seeing across the Continent of Europe. While we love to talk about the weather in Ireland all of the time, obviously we are experiencing very high temperatures here. I am raising this in the context of the opportunity for tourism in Ireland during the summer months. While we have warm weather by our standards, it is a lot better than the extreme heat of Spain, Portugal and other countries across the continent of Europe. I suggest we can do more in terms of attracting people on "coolcations", as it is called when people go on holiday to a better, more refreshing climate. There is a great tourism opportunity there. It is something I will raise with the Minister, Deputy Burke, as Minister for tourism. I call on Tourism Ireland to do more in terms of campaigning on that. We are a very well connected island and we have a very good tourism story. We see fatalities due to extreme weather events across Europe, which put difficulty and pressure on vulnerable and elderly people. In this great country, we have a much safer weather system that we can use to attract visitors from Slovenia and across Europe. There is a story to tell. With the support of the House and the Minister, we can do more.

I reiterate my call to the National Transport Authority, NTA, to support the Straide community on the reinstatement of the bus that passes by Straide village. It has the investment of two bus stops. The Citylink bus route took over the public service obligation from Bus Éireann after it ceased. It is the Ballina to Galway bus. It is a simple ask. I acknowledge Jimmy Mulroy and the whole Straide community, along with Councillors Neil Cruise and Donna Sheridan, who have campaigned alongside myself and others to have this bus reinstated. It is a simple ask but it would make the world of difference to vulnerable people who are otherwise disconnected from the major populations in each direction. It is very important for young people who are not driving, and people going for education, medical appointments or work. I call on the NTA to do this. It is very important for the Straide community that it listens and makes this happen.

Dobro jutro, Dobar Dan; good morning to the ambassador. He is very welcome. From Ljubljana to Maribor and beautiful places like Portorož, Slovenia is a beautiful country. I was in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the end of the war in 1996. We travelled from Prijedor through Banja Luka up to the border with Slovenia. I remember that Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were in complete darkness. When we crossed the border into Slovenia, it was lit up. All the lights were on. It was beautiful. Slovenia enjoys that peace, as we do here. We can never take peace for granted. We have so much in common with Slovenia. We have powerful neighbours and great friends. I wish Slovenia a very happy Independence Day.

On this day last year, 25 June 2025, I came in here and presented the Disability (Personalised Budgets) Bill 2024. For the first time in the history of the State, a Bill was prepared by one of the major international law firms based in Dublin along with the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers. As part of its pro bono corporate social responsibility, that international law firm gave me a legal team pro bono for almost two years to work on this legislation. It took every bit of Government policy and every Government consultation that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and their coalition partners had done, right up to and including the disability action plan of the then Minister of State, Senator Rabbitte, and the then Minister, Deputy O'Gorman. Everything the Government wanted to do and had set out in policy for personalised budgets is in this Bill. The only thing that is missing is the passing of the legislation. I presented it on this day last year. The Minister, Deputy Foley, time-delayed it for 18 months. According to the Order Paper, the Disability (Personalised Budgets) Bill 2024 is ordered to be read a Second Time on 25 December 2026. I wonder if I should come in before or after the Christmas dinner. Maybe Senator McCarthy will come up from County Kildare and support me. We could share some cranberry sauce over a little bit of reheated turkey.

That time delay was cynical, to be perfectly honest. I was told by the Minister that she had to delay it because she needed to consult her officials on the pilot project. She said she would come back to me in good faith and work with me to progress this legislation. Here I am, exactly one year later, and what have I heard from the Minister, Deputy Foley? I have heard nothing, and I have written to her several times seeking the meeting she promised me. All the while, disabled citizens around this country are locked into grinding, enduring poverty, a cost-of-living crisis and a cost of disability that is up to €28,000 per annum. All I can say is, to quote Scrooge from Dickens's A Christmas Carol, "no space of regret can make amends for one life's opportunity misused". That is what happened on this day last year, 25 June 2025. I hope we can have some sort of a debate about the cost-of-living crisis as it applies to disabled citizens.

I welcome Deputy Lawlor and his guests to the Gallery. I hope they enjoy their visit. They are very welcome.

I echo Senator Fitzpatrick's good wishes to the Pride community. Happy Pride to everyone; it is going to be a great celebration.

I raise again the FAI's shameful intention to support apartheid Israel’s sportswashing. It recently announced that its upcoming fixture with genocidal Israel will be played at a venue abroad instead of at the Aviva Stadium. Using some bizarre, twisted logic, the FAI has tried to make this out to be some sort of concession to appease pro-human rights and pro-Palestinian activists, as if playing Netanyahu's fascist state behind closed doors in Hungary somehow makes this sordid affair morally better. In reality, this is a cynical move intended to prevent the hassle of the protests in Dublin which would no doubt meet the Israeli team. The vast majority of Irish people are opposed to this game going ahead. The vast majority of sportspeople and sporting communities absolutely disagree with it going ahead. This game needs to be stopped. If it had gone ahead here, there would have been huge anger facing the Israeli team and the FAI. The FAI had a chance to stand up for the footballing community, not just in Ireland but across the world, along with young children in the Gaza Strip who have been shot in the legs to stop them playing. There have been targeted attacks on them. The Israelis have turned sports facilities into graveyards and killing fields as a deliberate tactic. The FAI made this decision to take the easy way out and avoid looking the Irish people in the eye. Even more shameful than that cowardice is the FAI's deliberately deceptive attempt to warp reality and pretend that this move is an example of its solidarity with Palestine. The Palestinian Football Association has made it very clear that it does not endorse Ireland playing Israel. It has confirmed that it has not issued any statement endorsing, approving or supporting the decision to proceed with this match, and that it will not be party to any effort to normalise or contribute to the sportswashing of crimes committed against the Palestinian people.

The FAI is clearly trying to misrepresent the voices of Palestinian people as cover for their own spinelessness. There is a lot of commentary and a lot of it includes the word "neutral". The reality is that the FAI says that it is going to play in a neutral venue and commentators use that word "neutral". Any country that hosts Israel in football is not a neutral venue. It is facilitating sportswashing and genocide. Hungary is not a neutral venue. It is pro-Israel, pro-apartheid, pro-genocide and it is unacceptable to use the term "neutral", when clearly it is not a neutral act to allow and facilitate Israel playing in its country.

I also welcome the Slovenian ambassador and his delegation. I know they have left now, but we had a fruitful engagement led by the Leas-Chathaoirleach. There is certainly huge scope for developing tourism and business links with Slovenia, and I wish them all the very best on their national day.

I call for a debate on the emergency services, particularly the Coast Guard, because it is largely a volunteer-led organisation in this country and the remuneration its members get is very little. There has been a long-term campaign for them to be brought up to the level of retained firefighters and given the same remuneration. That is reasonable because throughout this country there are Coast Guard volunteers on call on a regular basis, particularly during this type of weather because people are swimming, using boats and so on. The Coast Guard is always alert and available to do its duty at a moment's notice. We need to examine the volunteerism element of this, and we need to look at upgrading at least some of our busy Coast Guard units to the same remuneration as retained firefighters.

While I am speaking and given the weather we have, I encourage people to heed the advice of the lifeguards who are doing fantastic work on our beaches the length and breadth of the country. People should listen to them because they have everyone's best interests at heart and they will keep them safe.

Finally, I also encourage people to be careful around forests and gorse at the moment because it is very dangerous. Using barbecues and that type of thing near trees can have catastrophic consequences. I call on people to be careful and most importantly they should enjoy this spell of fine weather and be safe.

An article this week revealed that at least 346 third level students reported being homeless in the last academic year. Student representatives believe that the figures are higher and describe this as being only the tip of the iceberg. The article was on thejournal.ie this week. As someone who has worked with homelessness, I have seen the demographics and face of homelessness change. Even though this article disturbed me, it was not surprising.

When most people think of homelessness, they have a picture of a person on cardboard with a sleeping bag and a cup. They do not picture a young person who is in the middle of their university degree and is now living in a car or having to quietly drop out of college because they cannot guarantee somewhere affordable to live. It is hidden homelessness, and it is growing. I see that through our homeless cafe, the Lighthouse. Education has always been a way out of poverty. It is one of the greatest routes that I have seen to transform lives, but what chance does a student have it they are finding it difficult to know where they are going to sleep at night?

At Tiglin, we have seen countless people turn their lives around through stable accommodation, and we have supported many people into further education and employment. We have a wonderful initiative that is funded through the South East Technological University, SETU.

For the past year, I have spoken in this House about the shortage of student accommodation and it is no longer a higher education issue. It is a homelessness issue. It places enormous pressure on the private rental market, and it is pushing vulnerable students into insecure living arrangements. One of my colleagues recently talked in this House about sex for rent, etc.

If we genuinely believe in equality of opportunity for our students, we need to make sure that we do not accept this. Every student deserves the chance to learn, flourish and fulfil his or her potential. Students should not spend their college years worried about where they are going to sleep at night.

The rather confused issue of the triple lock is finding its way through the Houses as we speak. During a debate I listened to, it was claimed that the removal of the triple lock will mean that the Defence Forces can never serve in a peacekeeping role again. This is incorrect. Irish peacekeepers have been participating in peacekeeping operations, wearing the blue beret of the United Nations, the Óglaigh na hÉireann beret or the Glengarry caubeen, while serving overseas. That was in an EU mission sanctioned by the UN. If the UN sanction a mission on a regional basis, there is no blue beret. You wear the beret of your unit, regiment, army or whatever it is.

The second issue is the issue of war fighting. There is no war fighting in peacekeeping. There is peacekeeping or there is peace enforcement. Ireland has been involved in peace enforcement since 1999. It is very clear. Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows for peace enforcement and that is what we do when we go overseas.

We need to take the emotive language out of what is going on with respect to the triple lock. The triple lock is mutually exclusive from our neutrality, although everybody in this House knows that I have serious issues with us declaring ourselves a neutral state. How the hell can we be neutral when we find ourselves in the situation where we are unable to provide security for the forthcoming EU Presidency? An article that broke on thejournal.ie yesterday reported that the Attorney General was forced - five days before we take over the Presidency of the EU - to come in and advise the security services that the use of foreign troops is contrary to Article 15.6 of the Constitution. I wonder how we are going to square that circle in the next couple of days? We need to be more upfront about how things are done, particularly on the peacekeeping side and the triple lock. For God's sake, let us stop making it emotive and just get rid of the thing.

I want to discuss the commercial outlook for our marts around the country. Can we request that the Minister, Deputy Heydon, comes in to discuss this? Many marts are now reporting a loss in sales of up to 13%, which is huge. Anyone who is from a rural area knows the importance of the mart. It provides employment, which is obviously very important, but it is also a social outlet for many farmers. They may not meet anyone else for the rest of the week whereas they meet up there and discuss farming issues. They could also go for the spuds or a few pints or whatever. There is a big social aspect as well. I would like the Minister, Deputy Heydon, to come before the House to discuss his awareness of the issue and whether he has any plans to help them out.

I was pursuing Senator Fitzpatrick because I thought she would be interested in what I have to say, but I think she is gone. I am going to talk about the National Botanic Gardens in Glasnevin in her neck of the woods. For the Members who do not know, in this House stands one of the most magnificent oil paintings. It is of John Foster, the Speaker of the House of the Irish Parliament in 1790. He was the man who granted the Dublin Society, now the Royal Dublin Society, the consent to establish a public botanic garden. The gardens were eventually established in Glasnevin in 1795. The painting of John Foster holding the map hangs on a wall in Leinster House. Members might have a look at it if they have time before they leave for the day.

It is particularly relevant. Most people do not know that the map that is in front is actually the map of this great site at Glasnevin. I raise this very important issue to give thanks to Dr. Matthew Jebb, the director of the National Botanic Gardens, who has retired. He is a long-standing significant individual. I congratulate the new appointee, Dr. Noeleen Smyth. It is the first time a woman has been appointed as director of the National Botanic Gardens of Ireland, renowned as perhaps one of the best botanic gardens in the world. It ranks second to Kew in London. It is an amazing garden. Dr. Smyth will take up residence in the magnificent house in the centre of that wonderful estate. She will also have charge of Kilmacurragh Estate, County Wicklow, on behalf of the State and of course the magnificent John F Kennedy Arboretum in County Wexford. I wish Dr. Smyth well as she leaves the UCD school of agriculture and food science to take up this prestigious role. She brings enormous experience in horticulture, agricultural science and botany. It is a good appointment so I wish her well and of course I wanted to put Dr. Matthew Jebb on the record of this House.

The parallel and the significance with the Irish Speaker in 1790 and the fact that we have the portrait of the first Botanic Gardens site here in this House is a nice and significant link. I will finish by saying, what a magnificent day today is. I urge whoever in these Houses has an opportunity, or people listening in, to go and visit this magnificent botanical oasis that is free to go into. It is an amazing place. We do not go there enough and I commend everyone to it.

I call on the Deputy Leader, Senator O'Loughlin, to respond.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. We are getting away lightly this morning. Senator Fitzpatrick spoke about the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Drugs Use and the report it brought out yesterday. Many meetings took place and 161 recommendations were made, which hopefully will help to guide us to a health-led approach, which is important. I thank Senator Fitzpatrick and to all who served on that committee. I also thank the members of the citizens' assembly, chaired by Paul Reid, for their work. I thank all those who gave of their lived experience and the different agencies that have been involved. I spoke during the week about Cuan Mhuire and about the support it gives to those who suffer from addiction. I also acknowledge the work that Senator McCarthy is doing in that area.

I appreciate there has been a lot of discussion and debate. We need to have a debate here in relation to it. Senator Fitzpatrick is right in that everybody is focused on one of the 161 recommendations. There needs to be a balance struck. We need to do everything we can to support those in addiction but more importantly, to help to prevent addiction happening in the first place. Senator Fitzpatrick also spoke about Pride weekend and how important it is that we celebrate our LGBT community and to think of those who struggle with their sexuality so that we will be mindful of them. I wish that everybody enjoys the LGBT celebrations around the country safely and inclusively. I certainly look forward to participating in the Dublin parade on Saturday as I always do.

Senator Mark Duffy spoke about the extreme weather events and the tourism opportunities that are there. When we see the level of heat around Europe and that 40 people sadly died in France, it is quite shocking. Other countries are obviously having their own issues. It is important that we market Ireland as a cool location for holidays. I have no doubt that Tourism Ireland will take that up.

Senator Clonan talked about his Disability (Personalised Budgets) Bill, which the Minister, Deputy Foley, is considering at this point. As there is an ongoing pilot project, it is important to allow that time and space in order to have the conclusions and recommendations from that. I will seek a meeting for the Senator with the Minister, Deputy Foley. However, it is also important to recognise the work that the Minister, Deputy Calleary, is doing on the cost of disability and on employment opportunities for those with disabilities. That is going to be a key element of our Presidency. It is not fair to say that nothing is happening while we have this stay on coming to the next Stage of the Disability (Personalised Budgets) Bill. I support personalised budgets on a personal basis.

Senator Andrews is consistent in relation to the issue of the Israel-Ireland match. He spoke again today about the decision the FAI has made. It is a very difficult position for the Irish players. We have to recognise that. The FAI at least has brought clarity to it because for quite some time there was a "will they - won't they" situation in relation to it. It has stated it intends to fulfil the fixture against Israel in accordance with its obligations as a member of the UEFA. We know, as a matter of record, that it had objected to Israel playing in the first place. It is important that we acknowledge the FAI's independence and autonomy in arriving at this decision. The performance and the integrity of our top athletes on the international stage has a very positive representational impact for Ireland, as Irish sport provides the world with a window into our country in many different ways. If our athletes and players are competing we need to support them. Ultimately, it is for international sporting federations to make the decisions in carrying out their competitions and who may participate in them.

Senator Martin Conway looked for a debate in relation to our emergency services, particularly the Coast Guard. Interestingly, last Friday I had the opportunity to visit a Coast Guard station in Westport. Being from Kildare I do not have many such opportunities. It was really interesting. This is a new station that the Minister, Deputy Jack Chambers, turned the sod on a number of years ago. He went back to visit it when it was finished and I had the opportunity to accompany him there. We had some of those who work nationally on Coast Guard operations and are based in Dublin. I asked about volunteerism versus having the possibility of retained people. This was one of the most enlightening engagements I had. There are 27 volunteers in Westport. We saw where every one of them has the gear they must wear, we saw the boats and the patrol vehicles which are needed and used. The most interesting part was from the lead, whose name I cannot recall at this moment. They are such committed individuals. He himself is one of the 27 volunteers. He reckoned that if we brought in a retained service now, that he does not believe he would have any. Volunteerism suits the job and the role that they need to do. If they went down the road of retained firefighters, everybody would have to live within ten miles. If they are on call they absolutely have to drop everything and be available. Over the past number of years, in terms of being able to send the call out to the 27 volunteers they have now, they are absolutely well able and have managed every single time to get the manpower in that they needed.

It was interesting to have the conversation and I am reflecting on it now. Senator Conway has asked a very pertinent question. It was the question I asked and that was the answer I got. It is no harm to have the conversation on a wider, more national basis. I thank the Coast Guard station in Westport for facilitating my visit. It was really interesting. I also thank everybody who works nationally as part of the services. Senator Conway also spoke about respecting lifeguards by heeding their safety advice. He also called on people to be careful when using barbecues on warm days.

Senator McCarthy spoke about homeless students. Very recently we learned that there are around 345 students who have reported being homeless. It is awful to see that. It is particularly difficult when students are estranged from their families and that situation is not taken into account when SUSI grants are being allocated either.

Only yesterday, I had an interesting conversation with a professor who spoke about how a lot of colleges are changing to providing three-day modules to ensure students only have to find accommodation for two nights. It is not just accommodation that is a problem but it certainly helps that if a student must travel quite far from home or pay for expensive digs that he or she will only have to do that for two nights. More importantly, students want to work. Two of those days will probably be spent in college and one day will be spent online. Interestingly, students will now have between four and five days to work and earn. We always talk about the ability to work and earn in terms of apprenticeships but now it also seems to be coming into universities. To be fair, the Minister, Deputy Lawless, has unveiled an ambitious plan for student accommodation. It will take some time to get there but we are certainly working towards a situation where no students or, indeed, anybody should be homeless.

Senator Craughwell spoke about the triple lock and some of the incorrect information that is floating around. He also spoke about the assumption that the triple lock is broken. It is not that we are getting rid of the triple lock. The proposal is to change it to a double lock and that is the type of language that we need to use. He mentioned the assumption that peacekeeping would cease. The opposite is the case. At this point in time, other countries like the UK, Russia, America and China have the veto. Are we, as a country, comfortable with that? I do not personally believe that we are. However, we need to take the emotive language out of it. By having more autonomy to make ethical and responsible decisions, there may be more opportunities for our soldiers. I know that soldiers gain valuable experience when they serve abroad and that opportunity is hugely important for their careers and experience. Finally, I agree with Senator Craughwell that the triple lock is completely separate from Irish neutrality and after the recess we will have an opportunity to debate it further.

Senator Murphy O'Mahony spoke about the commercial outlook for marts and how many marts have reported a loss in sales of up to 13%. The Senator is right that the marts play a really important part, not just in terms of business but as a social point for farmers and their families. A visit to a mart is always enjoyable. We will invite the Minister, Deputy Heydon, to speak about the issue. The former Minister for agriculture, Deputy McConalogue, visited every single mart in this country. On those occasions he held a meeting with all public representatives and those within the IFA and farming communities. That was an important initiative because it brought Oireachtas Members and councillors from all parties in to marts. These politicians may never have been in a mart before but it gave them a sense of the value of marts to the community. We certainly need to put in supports to ensure that marts are valued and viable.

I thank Senator Boyhan for drawing our attention to the National Botanic Gardens. He has reminded me that I have not been there in quite some time and I need to visit. The Senator is right that the gardens are an incredible asset, as is the arboretum in New Ross, which I visit regularly.

It was good of the Senator to tell us about the appointment of Dr. Noeleen Smyth. She sounds like a very qualified lady. We have some wonderful State assets in the form of gardens and parks and it would be good to have a debate about all of them. Avondale Forest Park is an example. I take pride in the fact that my grandfather studied forestry in UCD. He was one of the people who stayed at the location and planted the trees that are there now. The recreational value of all the gardens and parks is important. Finally, we thank the retiring director.

The Senator also mentioned the painting of John Foster that is on display in Leinster House. Certainly, all Members will look for that.

I thank all of the Senators for raising these matters and I have given all my responses.

I welcome the Minister of State. The two motions will be debated together but decided separately. I call on the Acting Leader to move the first motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2026 and ending on 29th June, 2027.

The two motions before the House seek the approval of Seanad Éireann to continue in force provisions in the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 aimed at combating terrorism and organised crime. Given the nature of these important provisions, the Houses of the Oireachtas has decided that they should be periodically reviewed. The Minister for Justice, Home Affairs, and Migration, is required to lay reports before the Oireachtas on the use of the relevant provisions in the two Acts, and reports covering the 12 months up to 31 May 2026 were placed in the Oireachtas Library on 19 June.

Senators will be aware that the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in August 1998. This was a necessary and proportionate response to an atrocious and barbaric act and the murder of 29 innocent people by the Real IRA. These provisions of the criminal law provide strong legislative powers to ensure that the Garda and the courts are in a position to meet the challenge laid down by those opponents of peace. Section 18 of the 1998 Act provides that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 must be renewed by the Oireachtas at least annually if they are to remain in force. The report laid before this House includes information provided by the Garda Commissioner on the use of the provisions in question over the past 12 months and a table setting out usage figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation.

It is clear that so called dissident republicans, who have their origins in the Provisional IRA and INLA, continue to represent a threat. Despite the progress towards peace made over the years, they continue to seek to return to the fruitless violence of the past, as evidenced by two recent attempted attacks on police stations in Lurgan, County Armagh and Dunmurry, just outside Belfast. These groups have remained resolute in their opposition to democracy and rule of law and all that the Good Friday Agreement stands for, and they remain wedded to brutality and criminality. It is well established that they have links to and operate hand in hand with organised criminals.

There is no cause for complacency in countering the threat posed by these organisations. North-South co-operation in this area is crucial. Co-operation between gardaí and their counterparts in Northern Ireland is strong. Indeed, it is automatic when needed most. In recent years, the benefits of that co-operation have been apparent from successful joint operations between An Garda Síochána and the PSNI. The joint Cross Border Policing Strategy 2025-2027 provides a platform for An Garda Síochána and the PSNI to build on existing strategic and operational collaboration and strengthen policing capacity and capability.

I pay tribute to the gardaí and PSNI officers who continue to co-operate closely and work tirelessly together to keep their communities safe and to counter all threats from terrorism. It is our duty to ensure that those tasked with protecting us from this threat have at their disposal the appropriate measures to meet it. In that regard, I am firmly of the view that the provisions I am seeking renewal of today are necessary to support An Garda Síochána in investigating, disrupting and dismantling the activities of terrorists.

In addition to providing information on the use of the provisions in question over the past year, the report laid before this House notes the clear view of the Garda Commissioner that the Act continues to be an important tool in ongoing efforts to combat terrorism. While the 1998 Act was a response to a domestic threat arising from dissident republican terrorism, as an open democracy it is very important that we do not lose sight of the threat from violent extremism and international terrorism. There has generally been a deterioration in the international security landscape in recent times, in part due to the terrible wars in Ukraine and in the Middle East. Europol, in its most recent terrorism situation and trend report (2025), sets out the threat situation at EU level. The report confirms that terrorism, particularly jihadist and lone actor attacks, remains a key threat to the EU’s internal security.

Last year, the EU published its internal security strategy, ProtectEU. The strategy notes the changed security environment and evolving geopolitical landscape, where the links between the EU’s internal and external security require more action against the range of threats faced, including hybrid threats by hostile foreign states and state-sponsored actors, powerful organised crime networks, the ongoing threat faced from terrorism, technological advancements and more. Ireland is not immune from the threats arising in this changed security environment and must have the capability to deal with the threats arising. Building on ProtectEU, in February 2026 the EU published its agenda to prevent and counter terrorism and online extremism, which reinforces Europe's collective response to evolving terrorist and violent extremist threats.

The views of An Garda Síochána are clearly set out in the report, and they are that the continued operation of these provisions is required. In the meantime, as set out in the two reports laid before the House, it is the clear view of An Garda Síochána that the provisions of the 1998 and 2009 Acts continue to be necessary and effective in ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime. On the basis of the information set out in the reports and on the advice of the Garda authorities, I propose that the House should approve the continued operation of the relevant provisions of the 1998 and 2009 Acts for a further 12 months, commencing on 30 June 2026.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit ar maidin. The Minister of State is very welcome back to the House to discuss this very important piece of business. As she outlined, the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in order to strengthen the State's response to terrorism. Certain provisions of that Act are, as the Minister of State outlined, subject to renewal annually. They will expire on 30 June next unless approved by this House and the Lower House. The Government considers that there remains a real and persistent threat from dissident republican groups, as well as from those involved in violent extremism and international terrorism. In light of these ongoing threats, it is necessary to maintain the availability of these powers.

In May of last year, the Minister informed Government colleagues that he accepts in principle the recommendations of the majority report of the independent review of the Offences against the State Acts. Given the importance of the Acts over many decades, any proposals for reform must be thoroughly considered and approached with the utmost care. The Minister has indicated that he will return to the Government with detailed proposals in due course. I certainly look forward to that.

In the meantime, the renewal of the relevant provisions ensures that essential counterterrorism measures remain will remain in place. Accordingly, the Government is seeking approval from this House for both measures to be continued. In layperson's language, any responsible Government that is getting information from the Garda that there remains a credible threat to the State would be irresponsible if it did not take that advice on board. For that reason, I am very happy to allow these measures to continue in force for a further period.

Before we move to our next speaker, I welcome to the Gallery some special guests from the Athlone Flower Club. They are looking blooming lovely if they do not mind me saying so. They are guests of the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Boxer Moran. I hope they have a wonderful day here. They are looking smashing. It is a gorgeous day out there.

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Ardagh, chuig an Seanad chun páirt a ghlacadh i ndíospóireacht an lae inniu. Is riachtanach iad na hAchtanna um Chionta in aghaidh an Stáit a chosnaíonn an Stát ar bhagairtí sceimhlitheoireachta ó ghrúpaí paraimíleata, eagraíochtaí, agus daoine aonair le beagnach 90 bliain anuas. Ós rud é go bhfuil bagairtí sceimhlitheoireachta fós ann, ciallaionn sé go bhfuil forálacha na ngníomhartha a chosnaíonn an Stát agus ár ndaoine gach pioc chomh tábhachtach inniu is a bhí siad nuair a tugadh isteach ar dtús iad. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an ráiteas tosaigh ón Aire Stáit, an Teachta Ardagh, a leagann béim ar thábhacht leanúnach na bhforálacha sin.

The Offences Against the State Acts have been crucial pieces of legislation protecting the State against threats of terrorism from paramilitary groups and other organisations and individuals for almost 90 years. The fact that terrorist threats continue to exist today means that the provisions of the Acts, which protect our State and our people, remain every bit as relevant today as they were when initially introduced. I welcome the detailed opening statement by the Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, which emphasises the continued importance of these provisions. Almost 30 years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, it is considered that there remains a real and persistent threat from terrorist activity, as articulated by Senator Gallagher in his comments. This is in line with recent independent reviews carried out in 2023 and 2025, the latter of which stated that coercive control and threats linked to paramilitary groups "persist and remain a real concern".

We will forever be indebted to those who worked so hard and courageously to bring the violent and bitter conflict in the North to an end, and to bring the people of violence to the negotiating table and the path to peace. However, we cannot take peace for granted. We must look to build a better, brighter and more inclusive future for all, regardless of what flag we fly or what anthem we sing. In doing so, we cannot take the peace that has been achieved for granted. We must protect it and do everything in our power to counteract the threats that continue to exist. This is exactly what we are doing by reviewing and renewing the provisions of the Offences against the State Act, sending a message to paramilitary groups that they have no place in our democracy or in the brighter future we are looking to build for our children and generations to come.

As the Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, has outlined, we also need to be vigilant and wary of modern threats of violence, extremism and terrorism at an international level. We must continue to co-operate and work with our EU and international partners to counter the possibilities of chemical, biological, nuclear or cyberattacks and threats to our energy security. In this regard, I welcome the Minister of State’s comments on evolving international terrorism threats and extremism. On behalf of the Fine Gael group, I am very happy to support the motions.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

“:

- resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2026 and ending on 29th June, 2027; and

- calls on the Minister for Justice to bring forward legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review Group without further delay.”.

I second the amendment.

Sinn Féin welcomes the fact that the Government has finally come round to Sinn Féin's position that the offences against the State legislation should be overhauled. It is disappointing that three years after the publication of the review of the Offences Against the State Acts, the Government is once again renewing the existing provisions because it has been so slow in bringing forward new legislation to provide for the recommendations of that review.

The independent review group, chaired by Mr. Justice Michael Peart, in its report published in 2023 recommended that the Offences Against the State Acts be abolished in their entirety, with a majority recommending that a new non-jury court replace the Special Criminal Court to try serious criminal offences for which a threshold is reached. Sinn Féin has called for the proposals of this report to be implemented and for legislation to be brought forward without further delay. Given the fact that the Government and the Minister continue to drag their feet on this issue, Sinn Féin will be bringing forward legislation in the Dáil to require the Government to act and to provide the Dáil with progress reports.

Sinn Féin has argued that the legislation should stipulate that the courts, rather than the DPP, be provided with the power to decide on whether a non-jury trial should take place, as in the majority report. The legislation should also include a higher bar than recommended in the majority report for a non-jury trial. The legislation should include the requirement of evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place.

There is now widespread consensus that the laws drafted in the 1930s need to be updated. We need to ensure that An Garda Síochána and the courts have the resources and powers necessary to tackle organised crime and keep communities safe. The potential for jury intimidation remains the argument for non-jury courts, yet little has been done to protect jurors. The Law Reform Commission recommended in 2013 that the right of inspection of the jury panel, which may facilitate persons who wish to contact or identify jurors, should be restricted. It recommended the abolition of the daily roll-call of serving jurors in open court and the creation of a single offence of jury tampering. In Sinn Féin's submission to the independent review, we called for the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in relation to the protection of jurors to be implemented, and for the practices of other jurisdictions to be thoroughly examined with a view to adopting best practice in line with international standards to protect jurors. The independent review group to examine the Offences Against the State Acts has called for this to be done and there is no reason whatsoever for further delay in doing so.

Communities across the State are facing serious challenges relating to crime and antisocial behaviour, particularly in Dublin and its inner city. There are far too few gardaí to adequately police communities and, in particular, there is a lack of community gardaí and roads policing gardaí. The lack of community gardaí and the failure to divert young people from crime are real problems that must be dealt with. Those failures have allowed young people to become vulnerable to being preyed upon by those involved in organised crime from a young age. It is young people in communities failed by the Government and experiencing deprivation who are most vulnerable to being targeted by these criminal gangs, including as drug runners for drug traffickers. We need enough gardaí to police our streets, but we also need to see investment in communities in diversion and youth facilities, as well as tackling wealth inequality and poverty.

As there are no other speakers, I call the Minister of State to conclude the debate.

I thank all Senators who contributed today. I am grateful for their contributions, particularly those who spoke in favour, and there was also important discourse from those who did not.

Every Senator in this House knows the appalling damage caused by organised crime, as outlined by Senator Andrews and others, particularly the damage caused by the drugs trade to individual families and communities. As a public representative, and now as Minister of State at the Department of justice, I have seen first hand the impact that organised crime can have on families and communities. Too often, it is ordinary people who bear the consequences - parents worried about their children, victims living with intimidation and communities striving to provide better opportunities for young people. Those people expect us to ensure that our criminal justice system has the tools necessary to tackle serious criminality and protect the public. The motion before the House today very much does that.

I will refer to some of the issues raised by my colleagues, particularly in relation to the review of the independent report. This was outlined by Senators Gallagher, Kelleher and Andrews. As noted earlier, the Minister has accepted in principle the recommendations of the majority report and the proposals are being developed on that basis. The majority put forward a package of proposals on a modern legal framework to replace the Offences Against the State Acts and provide a new, stricter system overall with more checks and balances. They also recognise the need for such legislation to be subject to regular and meaningful independent oversight.

The threats that the State faces today from paramilitaries have reduced and altered while, as Senator Kelleher said, other threats have increased. These changes should prompt a change of policy while also recognising that replacement legislation must maintain the legislative basis for an effective State capacity to deal with terrorism and organised crime on an ongoing basis, as well as being compliant with human rights and the rule of law.

I agree with the report of the majority that any deviation from jury trial for indictable offences must be exceptional and based on the constitutional tests as set out in Article 38.3, and must have appropriate legislative safeguards in accordance with the Constitution.

Senator Andrews raised the issue of the protection of jurors and I note the recommendations in the report in relation this. This was also raised in the minority report in relation to examining what measures, short of non-jury trial, can be taken to protect jurors. As I noted, the Department is currently undertaking a review of jury service. The review is informed by recent research on the topic, the Law Reform Commission's report on jury service and the legislative and policy developments in related areas over the past number of years. These include amendments to the Juries Act contained in the assisted decision-making capacity legislation, work by the Courts Service to centralise the jury summons process and the roll-out of an online platform to allow people to practically respond to jury summonses, which can be quite stressful for people who are not used to receiving such summonses.

In relation to organised crime, the Department spent a record amount on budgetary measures. Over €2.74 billion was allocated in budget 2026 to An Garda Síochána and this enabled the Garda Commissioner to assign extra resources to specialist units involved in tackling organised crime. These include the Garda National Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau, the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the armed support unit, as well as more resources for the Criminal Assets Bureau.

An Garda Síochána continues to implement an enhanced national anti-drugs strategy through Operation Tara. The focus of this operation is to disrupt, dismantle and prosecute drug trafficking networks at all levels: international, national and local. It extends to anyone involved in the importation, distribution, cultivation, production or local sale and supply of controlled drugs.

In relation to the issue of community safety, which was raised by Senator Andrews and other Members, the Government is committed to building stronger and safer communities, and strengthening An Garda Síochána is at the very core of this. However, community safety requires a broader approach. In April 2025, the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, approved the establishment of 36 local community safety partnerships within each local authority area. They will now make their own decisions as to their day-to-day activities operating in accordance with the statutory regulations and having regard to guidance from the National Office for Community Safety. Queries related to their work should be directed to the relevant partnership office.

Retaining these measures in respect of the most serious crimes associated with terrorism and organised crime ensures that justice can be served and is free any attempts to thwart the criminal justice process. At its heart, this debate is about protecting the public, supporting the rule of law and ensuring that those who seek to undermine our democracy and our communities are met with a firm and effective response from the State. I commend the motions to the House.

Before I put the motion to the House, I wish to welcome guests of Senator Keogan. Elle Villa Tan is the Senator's foster daughter. She is studying in Trinity College Dublin and the Senator is very proud of her. Lara Gallagher is a student in UCD. Josh Oyiki is a student in Trinity College Dublin, and Natasha Rowan-Button is a student in Technological University Dublin. They are all very welcome and I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House.

And no homework.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann resolves that section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 (No. 32 of 2009) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2026 and ending on 29th June, 2027.”

Before we start, I welcome from Butte, Montana, Scott Drain and Sheri Drain. Butte, Montana, of course, is famous in our part of the world because so many people from south Kerry and west Cork ended up working in the mines in Butte, Montana, which at one stage had more people from Ireland living there than any other city in the United States west of the Mississippi.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 29, after “subsection (4)” to insert “and (4A)”

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the safety of victims. As we know, for this register to go ahead the victim must give their consent. We want to make sure the victims are safeguarded when giving consent. While they may have endured years of violence, coercive control or whatever the offence was and while the person has been convicted of that crime and hopefully will be serving a sentence, it does not mean that the control, intimidation and harassment have ended. I am aware of many people who have separated after violent episodes, and harassment, pressure and fear continue.

This amendment seeks to ensure that victims are given proper support, that sufficient information will be provided to them, that they will have support from specialist domestic violence services, and that they will be able to make informed and safe decisions. We need to be absolutely certain that the victim is giving their consent freely and voluntarily, that they have the ability to withdraw that consent at any stage prior to publication, and that that would be respected.

The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and I thank everyone for their consideration of the Bill. I welcome to the Seanad Chamber Jason Poole whom I had the honour of meeting today. On Second Stage the background to the Bill - its genesis in the brutal and senseless murder of an innocent young woman - was outlined by all. Senators of all parties and none praised the Poole family for their tireless campaign on behalf of their beloved Jennifer.

I take this opportunity to reiterate that those with serious criminal convictions for domestic violence offences should not be able to escape the consequences of their behaviour.

Those in relationships or considering entering into relationships with convicted offenders deserve to know about their past. They are entitled to make informed decisions about their personal lives. This legislation will provide people with important information in relation to their safety. Abusers thrive on secrecy and shame. However, it is a fundamental principle of our legal system that justice is to be done in public. This register will contribute to ensuring that criminal convictions for these heinous crimes are appropriately published. I look forward to today's debate.

I thank Senator Tully for submitting amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and for her contribution on them. However, I regret that I cannot accept them. Amendment No. 2 specifies that the court must be satisfied that:

(a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given,

(b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and

(c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register.

Amendment No. 1 is a consequential amendment to ensure that the substance of amendment No. 2 is incorporated into section 2(d). While I have some reservations about the drafting, I want to focus in the first instance on the substance of the amendments. As the Senator outlined, specialist domestic violence services play a crucial role in providing support, assistance and help to victims. They are often a lifeline for people who find themselves in these harrowing situations and their services make a real and important difference to their clients.

The Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, has been clear in his determination to address domestic violence and part of that determination means funding these vital services. For example, he allocated more than €3 million six months ago specifically for the expansion of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence services. Cuan disbursed this funding to 67 organisations working in this sphere on foot of a rigorous assessment process. I fully understand and appreciate the importance of these organisations that work across the country. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is appropriate to include reference to them in the legislation. It is unclear what process a court could use to determine whether a victim had been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, nor is it clear what is required to enable informed and safe decision-making in this context or, for that matter, what constitutes informed and safe decision-making. For these reasons, I am unable to accept these amendments.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), the court shall be satisfied that—

(a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given,

(b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and

(c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register.”.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, to delete line 11 and substitute the following:

“(b) the date of birth of the convicted person;”.

I want to speak to amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. From the outset, I want to make clear that this is a very important Bill that has the full support of the Labour Party. We need to make sure that it is watertight and operates as intended. That is why we have tabled these amendments.

We believe that there is a real risk of misidentification in the proposed register and we aim to counteract that. Currently, the register relies solely on names and approximate ages. As the Bill is currently drafted, a judgment to be included in the register will contain the name of the convicted person, the age of the convicted person where available and, subject to the court's discretion and where available, the residential address. This combination of name, age and discretionary address is the complete identification framework currently proposed. We believe that there is a real risk of misidentification as part of this. Ireland has a relatively small population and a heavily concentrated surname distribution, in particular in large urban areas such as Dublin, so combining a common surname with a common first name, for example, John Murphy or Seán Kelly, and a birth year would produce a non-trivial probability of multiple matches. The register is public facing and also Internet searchable. There is no unique identifier such as a PPS number, date of birth or physical description in the mandatory fields.

We raise this issue only because this Bill is so important. We cannot let the risk of misidentification get in the way of an entirely worthy aim of empowering people to protect themselves from domestic abusers in their lives. We need to get this right.

Amendment No. 3 would require the inclusion of the date of birth of the convicted person to be included in the register of judgments in all cases. Currently, the Bill only requires that the judgment include the age of the convicted person, where available. A person sharing a name and approximate age with a registrant could be misidentified by employers, landlords, neighbours or partners consulting the public register. We believe that the inclusion of a date of birth in all cases would be an important step in disambiguating the names on the register. It is a simple step but one we believe is essential.

I want to speak to amendment No. 4, which is proposed by the Labour Party. Amendment No. 4 states:

In page 4, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“(ca) the record number assigned to the proceedings by the court;”.

This amendment would require the publication of the court record number for proceedings in which a person was convicted to be published on the register. Again, this is for the purposes of disambiguation and would allow anyone to request the underlying judgment for verification and for it to be made available. We believe that this is a commonsense step that would help to substantially mitigate any risk of misidentification. The principle here is the same one that underlies the Bill itself, namely, transparency. If a person consulting the register is empowered in this way to request access to court records, the risk of someone being wrongly identified falls significantly. That, of course, protects the individual who may be misidentified, but it also strengthens trust in the register itself. It is important that the public have trust in this register, which is what we should all be aiming for in pushing this legislation forward. I hope that the Minister can accept the amendments.

I thank Senators Harmon and Cosgrove for putting forward both of these amendments. The purpose of the amendments is to try to ensure that the person who is referred to in the judgment that is published is identifiable.

If we look at how things operate at present, it can be quite instructive as to how we should approach this. Part of the reason I am introducing this legislation is because people can be convicted of serious indictable offences in the Circuit Criminal Court or the Central Criminal Court yet nobody is aware of it unless there happens to be a journalist in court. If we take the example, however, where there is a journalist in court, we can see that information is frequently published in newspapers about reports of convictions. The person is identified. Sometimes, their photograph is not available. We see people covering their faces coming out of court. There is a mechanism whereby they are identifiable. Sometimes, it is in the context of the victims identifying themselves. It is the case that there is a mechanism to ensure that people are known – who they are and what they have been convicted of.

It is the case in Ireland that many people share the same name and there are such people from the same townland. I did give consideration to what is being proposed by Senator Harmon – to include the date of birth of the convicted person. At present, what is required is the name, age and residential address, subject to subsection (6), of the convicted person and other particulars of the offence for which the convicted person was convicted, as well as the penalty imposed on the convicted person. Ultimately, I left it as the age of the person as opposed to putting in the specific date of birth because the departmental officials and I had concerns about the inclusion of a full date of birth, particularly when combined with other personal details such as, potentially, a residential address.

The fear was that this could significantly increase the risk of misuse of personal data, including via identity theft, because somebody would have access to a person's name, potentially his or her address and his or her date of birth. I have decided that the person's age will be included. That is very much an identifying factor. It is probably equally as identifying a factor as a date of birth since most people are not aware of individuals' date of birth.

On amendment No. 4, which proposes to include the court record number associated with the proceedings, I am not persuaded that this information would materially assist in identifying an offender. Court record numbers are highly specific administrative references and are unlikely to be readily available or known to members of the public who are seeking to verify an individual's identity through the register.

While I will obviously keep this under review, overall, I am satisfied that the combination of the offender's name, age and, where appropriate, residential address, together with the other information necessarily contained in the written judgment, will provide sufficient information to identify an offender accurately. I therefore believe that the register as currently structured strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring effective identification of offenders and safeguarding personal data while also remaining fully capable of achieving its intended objectives. I will obviously keep it under review, however. If it needs to be expanded after enactment, I will certainly give consideration to other factors.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“(ca) the record number assigned to the proceedings by the court;”.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 20, after “justice” to insert “, safety, and the best interests of a child,”.

We welcome this legislation. We hope that it will bring about a level of safety for people, especially women, who often enter into relationships without knowing the type of people they are entering into relationships with. Women sometimes end up in very complex relationships, even when they do know that the people they have entered relationships with have caused harm in their communities. It can be very difficult to understand the vulnerabilities that exist for women in those complex situations.

Our amendment is concerned with a person's address. I understand that the previous Labour amendments wanted to ensure that people were identified accurately. Including an address, a date of birth and so on could ensure that people would not be misidentified. However, we also need to understand that people who abuse someone often do not only abuse one person. While they may have a conviction relating to a relationship with someone else, they may go on to create another family with somebody who does not know about that. They may have children. Our concern is whether the best interests of such children will be taken into account if an address is to appear on a public register. While we are creating safety for anybody who encounters and ends up in a relationship with a person that is known to be violent, there may be other family members within that household. What does that do for them? How are they protected? Should we reduce their levels of safety? They are already in an unsafe situation if they are in a household with a violent man. Obviously, the ideal solution is to create safety and to remove them from that situation. If they are not removed, however, will a person's name being included on this register lead to minors being exposed? In the worst-case scenario, children in school may become aware that their classmate's father is on a register. They know it is him because the address will be included rather than just the name. People in the community may then descend on the house. What protections or safety plans have been put in place for other people who are living in that house? They obviously need to be protected from that individual, but they may also need to be protected from the public. We have had vigilantism in this country before. We had it in the eighties and nineties in relation to drugs, and we have seen it where paedophiles have lived in communities. I have witnessed this is in my own community. My fear is that in seeking to protect some people, we may risk reducing the safety of others who are living within a household. What does including a person's full address mean for the protection and rights of other people who live with that person?

I thank Senator Ruane for putting down the amendment. Consideration has obviously been given to the extent to which the address of the offender, the convicted person, should be published. That is why it is contained within a separate subsection, namely the proposed section 40A(6). As the Senator can see, the court is to be given a discretionary power to omit the residential address. The factor to be taken into account in determining whether to include or omit the residential address is the interests of justice.

On the issues Senator Ruane has highlighted, we have to consider the situation at present if there is a journalistic report in a newspaper of a person being convicted of a very serious criminal offence against an intimate partner. At present, there is no preclusion or prohibition on the publication of the address. In many instances, the addresses are published and people are aware of them. I am not aware of incidences of people being subject to vigilantism, to use the Senator's words. I do understand that could happen but it could happen as things are at present.

One of the motivating factors behind the legislation is the recognition of the inconsistency that operates in respect of certain offences being reported and other offences not being reported. It is certainly the case that if you are a well-known person, your case will be reported on. It is also the case that if your case is tried and your conviction takes place in the Criminal Courts of Justice in Dublin, there is a greater likelihood of it being reported because of the constant presence of journalists there. However, you could be convicted of a similarly serious offence by the Circuit Court in a courthouse down the country and, because there is no journalist in the courthouse, nobody would know about it.

Senator Ruane has suggested that the section be amended to expressly refer to "safety, and the best interests of a child". However, the Bill already includes within it the determining factor, that is, whether it is in the interests of justice. When considering whether the interests of justice require the omission of a residential address, I have no doubt that the judge will weigh up all of the factors of the particular case. This will necessarily include the circumstances of the convicted person, of the victim and of any children connected to the case.

It is unquestionably the case that, in determining this matter, the court will take into account the factors the Senator's amendment seeks to expressly include, including the interests of a child living in the House where the convicted person resides. Considerations of safety and welfare will be paramount in any decision as to whether it is in the interests of justice not to publish a residential address. As a result, I will not be accepting the amendment. Senator Ruane's concerns are already recognised within the legislation by the fact that residential addresses are dealt with by a separate subsection, section 40A(6), and by the fact that the interests of justice are broad enough to cover the issues the Senator is concerned about.

If the Minister is saying that the interests of justice include an automatic assessment of the best interests of a child, I am comfortable that this will cover our concerns. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, line 33, to delete “3 years” and substitute “5 years”.

The proposals in amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are to delete three years and substitute it with five years on lines 33 and 37 on page 4 and line 3 on page 5. They are also to include that the court:

may, in making an order under subsection (2), specify that a longer period shall apply before an application for removal may be made, having regard to—

(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence, and

(b) the need to protect the safety and wellbeing of the victim and, where relevant, any children or dependents.”.

I also raised this on Second Stage. I feel that three years on the register before you can apply to have your name removed is very short. I feel it should be at least five years. If someone is convicted for a serious offence, serves their time in prison, comes out and is put on the register, three years goes past quickly. If a potential partner in three and a half years’ time checks that register, and the name has been removed, they will not know that person was convicted of a serious crime. I know the Minister said on Second Stage he would give consideration to this. Will he consider changing it from three years to at least five years? In some instances, the perpetrator should also be informed if the nature of the crime is really serious that they cannot apply to have their name removed from the register for an even longer period of time. The purpose of the register is to warn potential partners of someone who was convicted of a serious crime in past years of what they have done and warn the potential partner of the dangers of that before they commit to a relationship. Three years is nothing, in my opinion, and it will pass very quickly. I ask the Minister to consider increasing it to five years.

I thank Senator Tully for her amendment. Obviously this is new legislation. It is a departure from what was there previously. When you are introducing new and novel legislation you have to proceed, as I am sure the Senator can appreciate, with caution at the outset. The advantage of establishing this as a statutory provision, and it being a principle in our legal system that there is such a statute available, is that we can review it and look at it and see how it is developing after it is enacted and we see its operation. What is proposed by Senator Tully is that the statutory period of three years for an application to have the name removed from the register be extended to five years. Under the current provisions, once a judgment is entered on the register it may only be removed following an application by the offender, and only after three years have elapsed from the date of conviction where no term of imprisonment was imposed, or from the date of release where the conviction resulted in imprisonment. The amendments propose extending that minimum period from three years to five years. In addition, amendment No. 9 seeks to introduce a provision enabling the court to order that the judgment shall remain on the register for a longer period.

I am not going to accept the amendments although I have given careful consideration to them. I emphasise, first and foremost, that there is no automatic expiry date for the inclusion of a judgment on the register. Once you are on the register, you will not get off that register of judgments unless you apply, but many people will not apply. The Bill does not impose any limit on the length of time a judgment may remain on the register. Once entered, a judgment will continue to be recorded unless and until the offender makes an application for its removal and the court is satisfied that removal is appropriate. In reaching that decision the court must have regard to a range of factors, including the offender's efforts towards rehabilitation and, importantly, the views of the victim. The Bill provides for a minimum period that must elapse before an offender may apply for removal and that period has been set by me at three years. It is important to recognise that inclusion on the register may have significant implications for an offender's ability to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, including in areas such as employment. I have to take those factors into account as well. For that reason, the minimum period for inclusion on the register must be proportionate and must strike an appropriate balance between the objectives of accountability, public protection from domestic violence and rehabilitation.

I want to be clear that this provision does not permit the automatic or immediate removal of a judgment from the register once the three-year period has expired. It merely allows the offender to apply to the court for removal, with the final decision resting entirely with the court. I know Senator Tully is not suggesting this, but people should be aware that this statutory provision I am introducing does not simply mean you stay on the register of judgments for three years and then it elapses. There is no period after which it will stop unless an application is brought. The period we are talking about here is how long after conviction or release can an application be brought. I have said you have to wait for three years. Senator Tully says five years. On balance I will stick to three years. I have to be careful when introducing new legislation like this, which people will seek to challenge as is their entitlement, and I want to be able to show that it is proportionate and I have been proportionate in balancing the primary interests. These are on the one hand protecting women and people who have been abused and may be abused in the future by convicted people, and rehabilitation of offenders on the other.

I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept five years. I understand absolutely that when someone goes on the register, they are on it until they apply to come off it. I cannot imagine that any person will not apply to come off it once the three-year period is up. I do not know why anybody would want to remain on it. It is a good idea to have the register, and I support it. I think it acts as a deterrent to people to perpetrate violence, mainly against women. I imagine that people will not want to stay on the register any longer than they have to. As I said, three years go by so fast, and then somebody gets into a new relationship with a person, and they are not on that register. I just feel it is too short a period of time to remain on it. I am disappointed the Minister will not consider it.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, line 37, to delete "3 years" and substitute "5 years".

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, line 3, to delete "3 years" and substitute "5 years".

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(9A) Notwithstanding subsection (9), the court may, in making an order under subsection (2), specify that a longer period shall apply before an application for removal may be made, having regard to—

(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence, and

(b) the need to protect the safety and wellbeing of the victim and, where relevant, any children or dependents.".

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 5, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(10A) A person who believes that information contained in a judgment included in the Register is liable incorrectly to identify him or her as a convicted person may apply to the court which ordered the inclusion of the judgement in the Register for a determination under subsection (10C).

(10B) On receipt of an application under subsection (10A), the Courts Service shall—

(a) annotate the relevant judgment on the Register forthwith to indicate that an application under subsection (10A) is under consideration,

(b) notify the court which made the order for inclusion of the judgment in the Register, and

(c) refer the matter to that court for determination.

(10C) On an application under subsection (10A), the court may make one or more of the following orders—

(a) an order that the judgment be annotated in such terms as it considers appropriate;

(b) an order that the judgment be temporarily removed from the Register pending such further steps as the court may specify;

(c) if satisfied that the judgment is liable incorrectly to identify the applicant as the convicted person, an order directing the permanent removal of the judgment from the Register or directing such amendment to the information in the judgment as it thinks fit.

(10D) An application under subsection (10A) shall not affect the entitlement of the convicted person to apply for removal of the judgment from the Register under subsection (9).".

I welcome the previous comment from the Minister that he will keep the legislation under review, particularly regarding the previous amendments tabled by the Labour Party, namely amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which were rejected. It is important that this register be kept under review in relation to the information provided on how it will work in practice.

We are very supportive of this Bill as a whole. Amendment No. 10 is a simple one that we believe amounts to a common-sense fix to the risk of any misidentification. It provides a mechanism by which a person who believes he or she is being misidentified may apply to the Courts Service for annotation or temporary removal of the judgment. On receiving such an application from a person who believes he or she is at risk of being misidentified as a domestic abuser, the judgment would be annotated to say that an application is under consideration. This would provide some mitigation in the case of misidentification in the interim. The matter would then be considered by the court that made the initial order for inclusion on the register. Having considered the application, it could then annotate the judgment as it considers appropriate or temporarily remove the judgment from the register.

We believe an open register like this, while absolutely welcome and needed, carries risks that need to be mitigated. There needs to be a process such as the one we are advocating in the legislation to take account of any risk of misidentification and spell out how a person could go about fixing the problem if he or she were to find himself or herself in that unfortunate position. We really need to consider this risk as part of the legislation. At the same time, we absolutely welcome this substantive legislation. It has been a long time coming and people deserve to know about this matter and to have transparency in relation to it. It particularly affects women, so the proposed measure is absolutely needed. I hope the Minister will consider this amendment.

I thank Senator Harmon for the amendment. Again, it is worthwhile to examine the situation currently because it is unquestionably the case that, at present, a person can be incorrectly identified as the person referred to in a judgment. There are very many reserved written judgments on the website www.courts.ie at present. We have judgments of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court. There is the odd one from the Circuit Court. The reason this legislation is necessary is that where there is trial by jury in the criminal context, it is seldom the case that there is a written judgment. The reason is that at the end of the process, a person is either found guilty or not guilty. For example, in the recent trial of Jeffrey Donaldson, there was no written judgment. There is just a record of the decision of the jury, which is announced publicly.

At present, however, there are reserved judgments which are reported judgments of the courts in respect of appeals to the Court of Appeal from criminal convictions. Where somebody is convicted of a serious offence and appeals it to the Court of Appeal, frequently and generally there is a written judgment where the names of the people are identified. Similarly, even where there is not a written reserved judgment of a judge, there are very many cases where serious criminal trials are reported on in the newspapers and the outcomes of the cases are reported by the newspapers. There are situations where, say, Jim O'Callaghan of Rathmines will have been convicted of a very serious offence and that is reported in the newspaper. It is unquestionably the case that there are other people of the same name in the vicinity who might be concerned about the fact that they could be considered to be him. There are many ways by which we know it is not that person.

The issue Senator Harmon is seeking to resolve or address in her amendments is one that exists across the board at present. It is possible that people who have the same name as another person referred to in newspapers or written judgments of the courts can be, to use the wording here, "liable incorrectly to identify him or her as a convicted person". That can already happen. The remedy for a person in that situation is sometimes that he or she can write to a newspaper and say he or she is not the person but there is not really a remedy in terms of written judgments of the courts. That is why it is important that there be specificity within any judgment identifying a person.

The approach taken in the legislation is to specify a minimum amount of information required in every judgment, to include the perpetrator's name, age, residential address if appropriate, particulars of the offence and particulars of the penalty. Obviously, there would be more information in a judgment that would assist in determining who the specific person is. I stress that this is similar information to that routinely published in media reporting on offences without any objection. However, in delivering judgments, I anticipate that the court will go further in providing further context and background on the offence and the offender. All of this facilitates a process of identification in which the various individual pieces of data will allow identification of a specific person and, equally, preclude the erroneous identification of others.

I am confident that any possibility of confusion will be mitigated in this way. Overall, I am satisfied that the combination of the offender's name, age and, where appropriate, residential address, together with the other information necessarily contained in a written judgment, will provide sufficient information to identify an offender accurately. As such, I will not be accepting the amendment.

This is an issue that exists at present. One can have a written decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of a serious conviction. A person's name and his or her address will be contained within it. Issues can arise in respect of people with similar names. There is no remedy in this regard at present other than that most people are able to distinguish themselves. If there is any doubt, they are able to notify people that they are not the person concerned and that they have not been imprisoned or had any issue like that.

It is an issue that can exist where people share the same name from the same area. I do not know if there any Mark Dalys down in Kenmare. If there are, they may be confused with the Cathaoirleach. However, it is an issue. I will keep the legislation under the review, but the provision the Senator is proposing is going to make it very difficult. Regarding somebody with the same name as the convicted person and nobody thinks it is them other than they may believe it themselves, comes in and then we start getting annotations on the judgment. That would be a very complicated way of dealing with, what is at present, not an enormous problem in respect of reported judgments.

Is the Senator pressing her amendment?

Yes.

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

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(ai) section 2, where the offence is committed against a spouse, civil partner, cohabitant or person in an intimate relationship;”.

The register is currently limited to indictable offences, including that of coercive control, and that is welcome. However, many cases of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence are also reflected across certain summary proceedings. For instance, while domestic violence orders originate in family law proceedings, a breach under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018, though at present solely summary, constitutes a criminal offence prosecuted within the criminal justice system. These breaches are critical indicators of escalating risk, particularly where repeated breaches occur and their exclusion may omit key information relevant to assessing ongoing dangers. That is why I am proposing that an offence under section 3 of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020 and offences under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act be included.

This proposal is confined to two specific offences that are uniquely indicative of ongoing repeated risk in domestic violence context rather than proposing a general expansion to summary offences. While breaches of domestic violence orders occur with some frequency, the inclusion of only those cases resulting in conviction and judicial consideration for publication ensures that the volume of published judgments remains controlled. I wish to draw attention to some personal experience of this. Where somebody commits a very serious assault or crime against a partner and, for summary, the Garda pursue the conviction, possibly for the attempt to kill or a section 4 assault, but then when it goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and due to plea bargaining or whatever, it is reduced to a section 3 or section 2 assault. While a reduced section 2 assault is a very serious assault, it is not included in the Bill. In that case, there should be some consideration given to including section 2 assaults where they have been plea bargained or reduced for that reason.

I thank the Senator for these three amendments. As she said, they seek to broaden the scope of the legislation to include a number of other offences that would trigger potential disclosure on the register of judgments. The other offences that she said should be included are assault where it is committed against an intimate partner, a breach of a protective order granted under the Domestic Violence Act and the recording, distributing or publishing of an intimate image without consent contrary to section 3 of the harmful communications Act. As she indicated, all of these are summary offences. Summary offences are offences that are tried in the District Court without a jury. They are supposed to be dealt with summarily and quickly. To be frank, they are less serious offences than indictable offences. That is how the legal system regards them.

I understand the rationale behind seeking to include these offences in the domestic violence register of judgments. These are offences that may be perpetrated by a domestic abuser. Such abuse may escalate to more serious acts of violence or it may not. It is nonetheless to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

However, as I outlined on Second Stage in the House, this legislation represents a new departure. It is novel legislation insofar as it gives a statutory power to the criminal courts in relation to delivering a judgment to be put on a register of judgments. This is not currently the practice in those courts, namely, the Circuit Criminal Court. It is for this reason that I have taken the decision to limit the scope of the legislation to indictable offences. These offences, by their nature, are at the most serious level of offending. The perpetrators of such offences are dangerous people. This measure will contribute to the identification of such abusers, providing knowledge that may make a material difference to someone's life.

I welcome Jason Poole to the Gallery. While I was reading that out, I was thinking of the circumstances of Jennifer Poole. The person who murdered her had convictions for previous serious indictable offences. Obviously, a situation like that, which has inspired the introduction of Jennie's law, is the type thing that we want to ensure is covered. It is covered.

During pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, there were some recommendations made by the committee on justice. I expanded the scope of the Bill on foot of those recommendations. It now includes the offences of harassment, stalking and distributing or publishing an intimate image without consent. I say this simply to illustrate that I consider all recommendations and amendments and, where appropriate, I will take them on board. Nonetheless, I do not believe I should accept these amendments, which would include in the Bill summary offences. That is how they referred to. The legislation is novel and it remains to be seen how it will function in practice. It is also liable to be challenged. I have to keep a balance between rehabilitation - the proportionality between that - and the offences. If I was to include convictions for what are referred to technically within the legal system as minor offences - I am not saying that they are - then it could upset the equilibrium that I have been very careful to establish here.

This is introductory legislation. It is novel. I will keep a very close eye on it. I am open to reviewing and revisiting the legislation once it is up and running. It may be the case that I will come back in due course or whoever is the Minister for justice may come back with a proposal to add to the list of offences that trigger this legislation. In the future, that could include summary offences as opposed to just indictable offences. I would like to see how it operates first of all in respect of indictable offences and we can proceed from there in the future.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 5, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“(ha) an offence under section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018;”

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 5, line 31, after “2” to insert “or section 3”.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(14) The Courts Service shall ensure that, when the Register is made available to the public—

(a) a statement is included to the effect that the absence of a person’s name from the Register does not indicate that such person does not pose a risk or has not previously engaged in domestic violence or abuse, and

(b) information is provided directing users to appropriate support services, including national and local domestic violence support services.”.”.

This amendment is looking for some sort of statutory disclaimer. The register may be seen by users as confirming that a person is safe if a specific name does not appear on the register. It is to ensure that the register is not misinterpreted and encourage users to seek advice and support in addition to the register. That is why I am proposing that this subsection be included.

Many people may have been found guilty of statutory offences. They may have had barring orders, protection orders or safety orders issued against them, and they may have breached those orders on numerous occasions, yet they will not be included in this register. They are dangerous individuals, though. The amendment is to ensure that people do not assume that, if a person is not on the register, they have not committed a serious crime.

I thank the Senator for this very useful amendment because it leads to an important discussion. It is clearly the case that, if somebody's name is not on the register, it does not therefore mean that there is no potential issue at all about a person with whom someone is in a relationship. Unfortunately, it is the case that most people who abuse women in Ireland after the enactment of this legislation will not be on the register because a lot it will happen for the first time.

Obviously, it may be the case as well that the register does not record every person who has committed violence against a partner in the past. It is worthwhile pointing out that the absence of a person's name does not indicate that such a person does not pose a risk or was not previously engaged in domestic violence or abuse.

Like Senator Tully, I do not want to frighten everyone who is getting into a new relationship that the first thing you have to do is to run a check on the register, and if they are not on it you get a sense of relief. Certainly, if somebody was on a register and you started going out with them, you would need to consider that, but in the context of what is being proposed here, it is important that people are aware that there are limitations to the register. Obviously, I am mindful that those accessing the register may be doing do because they are experiencing domestic violence or because they are seeking information on behalf of someone who is. In such circumstances, it is important that users are provided with clear information about the supports and services available to victims of domestic violence.

While I will not accept the amendment, I do so on the basis that the provisions proposed are operational in nature. Certainly, that is something that could be put up on the website in terms of where the judgments are. The amendment is probably too granular to be provided for in primary legislation. Legislating at the level of operational detail could inadvertently reduce flexibility and create unnecessary operational constraints in the future.

That said, I fully support the objective underlying these amendments. I assure Senators that the development and placement of appropriate warnings, explanatory notices and signposting to relevant support services have already been considered in discussions between officials in my Department and the Courts Service during the preparation of this Bill. I agree that members of the public should be clearly informed of the scope and limitations of the register as well as the supports available to victims of domestic violence. I wish to make it clear that such information will be prominently displayed to individuals seeking to access the register.

As regards Senator Tully's concern, that information will clearly be made available to individuals who are accessing information on the website. I am rejecting the amendment, not because I disagree with the detail of it but because that level of detail is not required in primary legislation.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 6, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

"(14) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2), the court shall have regard to—

(a) the safety and wellbeing of the victim, including any risk of intimidation, retaliation or further harm, and

(b) the safety and welfare of any children or dependents connected to the victim or the convicted person.".".

The publication of a judgment may in some cases increase risk to victims, particularly in situations involving children or when you have closely connected communities or ongoing contact with the abuser. At present, the Bill provides for judicial discretion but does not specify any factors to guide that decision to support greater consistency in decision-making across cases. That is the proposal, to include that "the safety and wellbeing of the victim, including any risk of intimidation, retaliation or further harm" and "the safety and welfare of any children or dependents connected to the victim or the convicted person" are taken into account before inclusion on the register.

I thank Senator Tully for the amendment. In many respects, the Senator's amendment is similar to the amendment that was put forward earlier by Senator Ruane, on which we had a decent debate.

As Senator Tully will be aware, the legislation provides the court with the discretion to order the inclusion of a judgment on the register. When considering whether to make an order or not, the judge will weigh up all the factors of the particular case. This will necessarily include the circumstances of the convicted person and the circumstances of the victim and of any child or children connected to the case. Considerations of safety and welfare will be paramount in the exercise of any such decision by a judge.

I am fully aware the courts are very much alive to the sensitivities of such cases. The Judicial Council Act provides a statutory basis for education and training of the Irish Judiciary. The Judicial Studies Committee exists, which is very important. It includes modules on procedural justice, courtroom dynamics, judicial conduct and ethics as well as unconscious bias. The committee further offers a series of education and training programmes to the entire Judiciary and they are very important.

We just look at the broad principle of legislation and see how it operates. When judges enter into office, when they are deciding a case or exercising a discretion such as will be available under this legislation is that they have to take into account all the circumstances of a particular case. We will not be aware of much of the detail. There could be factors that arise that none of us in this House has ever considered. That is why the Judiciary is mandated to exercise the judicial function in this State so that all those factors are taken into account in the interests of justice.

I thank the Senator for her amendment. I do not believe it is necessary. I believe all those factors will be taken into account by judges exercising the discretion that is available to them under this legislation.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Now.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?

Now.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank Senators for the manner in which they have dealt with this legislation. I again commend Jason Poole on really being the catalyst and driver of this legislation so that we can get this law, Jennie's law, through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

As I stated on the amendments that were discussed, it is a novel piece of legislation. I start from a premise that justice in Ireland is to be administered in public. People should have information available in respect of criminal convictions that happen in our courts. We are dealing here with our most serious courts, where there are indictable offences being heard and people are convicted of them. This legislation will provide a mechanism for judges to decide whether or not the judgment should be published and information should be available on serious criminal offences perpetrated by persons against intimate partners or former partners. There is a public benefit in that information being available. People are entitled to know what is happening in our courts. It is not possible for people to be fully aware of what is happening in our courts because there is such a breadth of work ongoing on a daily basis in the courts throughout Ireland and, in fairness, journalists cannot be expected to cover every case. I believe this process is an important start in ensuring that people can get more information about of indictable offences in respect of which there is a criminal conviction before our courts.

I thank Senators for their contribution. I value the discussion that we have had here. Once this legislation is enacted, we will learn from it. I have no doubt it will be necessary to come back to tweak it and to change it, or maybe to add to it, but it is important that we set the principle out that when people are convicted of serious offences by our courts there has to be a mechanism available in the context of intimate relationships here that people can get access to that information.

I echo the comments of the Minister in his summing up and thank all the Senators for their contributions, which have been constructive and thought-provoking. All the amendments have been given serious consideration by the Minister.

I thank and acknowledge Mr. Jason Poole for his contribution to this legislation. His family have been on a very difficult journey. The advocacy of Mr. Poole to get this legislation, Jennie's law, brought in has to be acknowledged and I commend him on it.

I commend the Minister on his initiative and his speed in bringing forward this legislation.

It will be a very important step for people to know that there is a register they can access if they have any concerns or doubts. I thank everybody involved.

I am thinking of all of the Poole family now. Jason has become someone that I know well at this stage. We have become friends. I am thinking in particular of Nevaeh, Jennie's daughter. Just before we came in, Jason was chatting about the family and where they are at. He said she had her last day in primary school and her graduation but it was a really difficult emotional day for her because she was one of the few there not to have her mam. That is a very difficult place for anyone to be in but Nevaeh can rest easy now, very sadly because of what her mother went through, but the legislation her uncle has championed with the complete and absolute support of the Minister and his team will hopefully mean other girls will not be in that position again. I firmly believe it is lifesaving.

I thank the Minister for his support the whole way through and for taking this on as a priority piece of legislation, together with Valerie's law. I bumped into David French again yesterday. It has become like a club – a sad one - but it is incredible when out of a place of huge grief, sadness and anger at what has happened positive legislation can be put in place. Adrian and Suzie on the Minister's team have been relentless in getting us here.

I thank all Senators for the way in which we have gotten through this business. Valid points were made, some of which we had discussed before. In particular given the Minister's background and experience, having legislation that is robust and implementable is the most important thing. He has committed to keeping a watching brief on how we go forward in relation to it. That is very much appreciated. The fact that the legislation can leave the Seanad and go to the Dáil for the next step in the process is very heartwarming.

I welcome this legislation. It is very important. I acknowledge Jason Poole and his family for their advocacy. They have gone through a terrible, traumatic event in their lives, as have so many other families. Unfortunately, the statistics this week show that the problem is still systemic. It is widespread. The more legislation that can be drafted and passed to address the issues of domestic violence, the better. I commend the Minister on bringing forward the Bill so quickly. We will all work together to try and get it through as quickly as possible. The Bill is very welcome.

Hear, hear.

I move amendment No. 17:

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

Amendment of section 19A of Criminal Evidence Act 1992

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

“19A. (1) In this section—

‘competent person’ means a person who has undertaken training or study, or has experience, relevant to the process of counselling; ‘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 (whether or not for remuneration); ‘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 person in respect of whom a sexual offence is alleged to have been committed (‘the complainant’); ‘court’ means the Circuit Criminal Court or the Central Criminal Court; ‘sexual offence’ means an offence referred to in the Schedule to the Sex Offenders Act 2001.

(2) For the purposes of any criminal proceedings in respect of a sexual offence, counselling records shall be deemed to be hearsay evidence, and any statement contained in such records shall be treated as an out of court statement tendered for the truth of its contents, regardless of—

(a) the form of the record,

(b) whether the statement is verbatim or summarised, or

(c) whether the statement is expressed as fact, opinion, or impression.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no record that consists of, or includes, counselling records or therapeutic records relating to a complainant shall, in any circumstances, be—

(a) sought,

(b) inspected,

(c) produced to a court,

(d) disclosed to the accused, the prosecutor, or any other party, or

(e) admitted in evidence, in any proceedings for a sexual offence, save that nothing in this subsection prevents a complainant from voluntarily disclosing their own counselling or therapeutic records to any person of their choosing.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), ‘counselling records or therapeutic records’ includes any record created in the course of, or for the purpose of, counselling, psychotherapy, psychological support, mental health treatment, or any related therapeutic service, whether provided by a professional, volunteer, or support organisation.

(5) No person, including the accused, the prosecutor, or any other party, shall make an application to the court seeking the production, inspection, disclosure, or admission of any record to which subsection (3) applies.

(6) Any purported application made in contravention of subsection (5) shall be void and shall not be accepted for filing or considered by the court.

(7) No person shall directly or indirectly contact a record holder, a complainant, or any other person for the purpose of seeking, requesting, or encouraging the disclosure of a record to which subsection (3) applies.

(8) A record holder shall not comply with any request, demand, or purported court order for the production or disclosure of a record to which subsection (3) applies.

(9) A court shall not compel, direct, or invite the production or disclosure of a record to which subsection (3) applies.

(10) Nothing in this section prevents a complainant from voluntarily disclosing their own counselling or therapeutic records to any person of their choosing, provided that such disclosure is not compelled, requested, or encouraged by any party to the proceedings.

(11) Rules of court may be made for the purpose of giving full effect to this section.”.

Amendment No. 18 is in the names of Senators Higgins, Ruane, Stephenson and Black, was already discussed with amendment No. 16 and I understand Senator Harmon is moving the amendment.

I move amendment No. 18:

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

“Amendment of section 19A of Criminal Evidence Act 1992

16.The Criminal Evidence Act 1992 is amended by the deletion of section 19A and the substitution of the following:

“19A. (1) In this section—

‘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 an 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 (whether or not for remuneration);

‘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.

(2) A counselling record shall not be disclosed in any criminal proceedings unless the complainant has consented to the disclosure.

(3) A complainant shall not be required, in or in connection with any criminal proceedings, to produce a counselling record unless the complainant has consented to the production of a counselling record.”.”.

I have moved the amendment on behalf of the Civil Engagement Group and propose to withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 23, to delete lines 18 to 21 and substitute the following:

“(b) there would be a real risk of an unfair trial in the absence of such disclosure.”,”.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 23, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(g) by the insertion of the following after subsection (11):

“(11A) Where an applicable record containing analysis, opinion or interpretation by the record-maker is adduced in evidence in proceedings before a jury, the court shall give a warning to the jury outlining the nature and limitations of such evidence, including that it may constitute a third-party interpretation and not a direct account of fact.”,”.

Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, are related, and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 23, after line 34, to insert the following:

“Review of operation of section 19A of Criminal Evidence Act 1992

17. (1) The Minister shall, not later than 2 years after the coming into operation of section 16, cause a review to be carried out of the operation of section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992.

(2) A review under subsection (1) shall include an examination of—

(a) the effectiveness of the provisions in protecting the privacy rights of complainants,

(b) the extent to which applicable records are the subject of disclosure applications,

(c) the impact of the provisions on the fairness of criminal proceedings, and

(d) the operation in practice of the procedures introduced by section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, including timelines and procedural safeguards.

(3) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the completion of a review under this section, prepare and lay before each House of the Oireachtas a report setting out—

(a) the findings of the review, and

(b) any recommendations for legislative or administrative changes arising from those findings.”.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 23, after line 34, to insert the following:

“Annual reporting and publication of anonymised data

17.(1) The Minister shall, in respect of each calendar year, cause to be compiled and published a report containing anonymised statistical data relating to the operation of section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992.

(2) A report under subsection (1) shall include anonymised information in relation to—

(a) the number of disclosure applications made,

(b) the number of such applications granted, refused, or withdrawn,

(c) the categories of applicable records sought,

(d) the stage in proceedings at which applications are made, and

(e) any other matters that the Minister considers appropriate for the purpose of promoting transparency and public understanding of the operation of section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992.

(3) In preparing a report under this section, the Minister shall ensure that no information is included that could reasonably lead to the identification of any complainant or other person to whom an applicable record relates.

(4) A report under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after its completion.”.

Senator Sarah O'Reilly is not present to move her amendment No. 23.

Amendments Nos. 24 to 27, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

These amendments concern the International Criminal Court Act 2006. They are minor and very technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 24 to 26, inclusive, ensure the definition of the crime of aggression for the purposes of co-operating with the International Criminal Court, ICC, shall not include any additional acts contained in a subsequent amendment to Article 8 of the ICC's Rome Statute in the absence of new primary legislation or a Government order made pursuant to the proposed section 64A of the 2006 Act. Similar limitations are already provided for in this Bill with respect to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and so it is considered that it would be anomalous not to extend such a limitation to the crime of aggression. Additionally, the wording of what is now subsection (1B) has been altered to ensure it aligns better with Articles 25, 26 and 28 of the Rome Statute.

Amendment No. 27 clarifies that the exception contained in subsection (2A) of section 64A shall only apply to domestic criminal investigations of International Criminal Court crimes and not to other proceedings such as those connected to co-operation requests with the ICC. While section 64A grants the Government the power to make orders prescribing certain acts that are the subject of an amendment to the Rome Statute as a crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC, this is only for the purpose of co-operation with the court and cannot be used to alter any domestic criminal offence in Irish law. This small clarification is aimed at more clearly reflecting this.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 28 to 31, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 35, line 31, to delete “in lieu of payment” and substitute “in lieu of, or in exchange for a reduction in, payment”.

I intend to move all these amendments and propose to discuss them together. Amendments Nos. 28 to 31, inclusive, are very straightforward amendments in relation to the element of this Bill that would provide the statutory provision on the issue of sex for rent, which needs to be outlawed. From the outset, we really welcome this provision and the first Bill I brought through as a Senator was on this Bill. I am really pleased the Minister has taken it on. He is the first Minister who has taken this issue on because a number of Ministers have made promises to deal with the issue and it was not dealt with. This is a huge step forward and should be broadly welcomed.

Amendments Nos. 28, 30 and 31 are all related and what they seek to do is ensure that when we are talking about the issue of sex for rent, as it is so called, what is inserted in the Bill also includes reductions in payment. We are talking about sex in lieu of or in exchange for a reduction in payment, so it takes into account any proposals related to an exchange for sex for full or partial payment of rent. Those three amendments relate to that. This is a very sensible proposal we hope could be accepted by the Minister.

Amendment No. 29 seeks to close what we see as a potential loophole in the legislation. We feel that potentially, the Bill could risk leaving out sitting tenants and licensees who have existing tenancies and could just apply to future tenancies. It is important this legislation covers existing tenancies of all sorts as well as any future tenancies. As there could be people who are already in these situations and need to have this protection under the law, again this is a very sensible amendment. I have tabled those four amendments together, which we believe would strengthen this legislation.

Again, I commend the Minister on addressing this issue. Having it set out in legislation will create a deterrent and awareness that this is an offence and needs to be stamped out because it is something that has significant prevalence in society. We know from reports and surveys that have been done by the Irish Council for International Students and the National Women's Council that this is a prevalent issue. There has been extensive coverage on this issue from journalist Ann Murphy in the Irish Examiner in Cork. We welcome the provision but hope the Minister can consider these amendments.

I thank Senator Harmon for the amendments and at the outset I acknowledge her role in ensuring this provision is within this miscellaneous provisions Bill. The reason for that is because last year, Senator Harmon introduced legislation in this House seeking to outlaw sex for rent. At the time I agreed with it and said I would try to bring it forward, which is what I am doing in section 45. The real advantage of a miscellaneous provisions Bill is that you can get provisions enacted and onto the Statute Book very promptly. Had I decided just to agree with Senator Harmon and say we would go down the route of introducing legislation to outlaw sex for rent, I would say we would not have it done by now. We would have to go through a long, detailed process and that is natural because there is a huge amount of work in the Department of justice. Officials work extremely hard and diligently but there obviously is prioritisation when it comes to legislation.

That is why I wanted to prioritise this and the best way to prioritise it was by including it within the miscellaneous provisions Bill. I thank Senator Harmon for her role in catalysing the introduction of this legislation, and hopefully its enactment. The Senator is correct in identifying, as she did last year, that the reason we need this provision is because of this pretty hideous and reprehensible activity that is ongoing. I know certainly that when it comes to the beginning of the college year in September, we generally hear some further accounts in respect to this. As well as commending Senator Harmon, I should commend the journalists who have identified this and who brought it to the attention of policymakers and legislators such as ourselves. It is exploitative behaviour. We need to stamp it out and we need to ensure it is not recognised as being in any way acceptable behaviour. Criminalisation of this behaviour is also a programme for Government commitment. It is also in line with the zero-tolerance strategy and the line the Government has in respect of our approach to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. Notwithstanding that it is something we all recognise needs to be made a criminal offence, it is complicated from a legislative perspective. This is why we had extensive engagement with the Office of the Attorney General in respect of the provisions. It required also getting the assistance of senior counsel with experience of prosecuting sexual offences. Officials in the Department of housing also contributed to the process.

The legislative provisions we are including are novel insofar as they represent a potentially significant inroad into the private sphere of interpersonal relations. Great care has been taken to ensure that they are clear, precise and limited in scope. This is necessary in order to ensure that the provisions are workable, constitutionally sound and prosecutable and that they will not create any unintended consequences. I am confident that moving to criminalise this predatory behaviour sends a strong message that such behaviour is not acceptable and that we as a society will not tolerate it. I want to assure Senators that I will keep this area under review to ensure that the legislation is working as it should, including expanding it in due course if deemed necessary.

In terms of the amendments put forward by Senator Harmon, where there is a reference on three occasions to "in lieu of payment" the Senator wants to include “in lieu of, or in exchange for a reduction in, payment”. The Office of the Attorney General has asked me to be cautious about this. The reason for that is when a person is asking somebody for sex in lieu of rent it is clear what is happening. The inclusion of "In lieu of a reduction in rent" could lead to circumstances where there may be a relationship ongoing between a landlord and a tenant. Are we going to then start saying that if there is a small reduction in rent because of the relationship that had consensually developed between them, in some respects could that retrospectively be identified as having been a criminal offence? It is an issue of concern.

It is a novel piece of legislation and I would just say to Senator Harmon that I am not going to accept the amendments because of their breadth. I know they may appear logical in terms of what the Senator is trying to outlaw but given the interaction or interference it will have in certain relationships and what could be regarded as a criminal act, namely, reducing slightly rent by a certain amount because of a relationship, I am not going to accept the amendments. I have gone through the process of having the new section 45A vigorously examined by the Office of the Attorney General and by officials in my own Department who were very satisfied that it is constitutionally sound and will stand up to any scrutiny. I do not want to start interfering with it at this stage. In respect of other matters, we will keep it under review. Again, I want to commend Senator Harmon on her role in bringing forward this legislative provision.

I thank the Minister for the reply on the amendments. It is important that we do keep it under review. It is new legislation and it will be important to see how it plays out in respect of reports on the issue and people who come forward with any potential cases. It will be important to see how robust the legislation is. I am happy to withdraw the amendments at this stage.

I appreciate that the Minister has been collaborative on this issue. When I introduced my own legislation - I think in April of last year - the intention was to be proactive and to come up with a solution. I appreciate that the Minister has taken that on board and within 18 months has come up with a proposal in that regard. It will be impactful, hopefully coming up to the new college year, to have this in place and to emphasise that there is this statutory provision and it should act as a deterrent. There needs to be public awareness around the issue and that this is going to be a new law. Interestingly, this morning at the Oireachtas committee on further and higher education, we were discussing matters in relation to sexual harassment and violence and particularly in relation to students. We had a number of different groups in and they talked about the issue of sex for rent and how prevalent it is, particularly for international students, migrants and those who are vulnerable. Again, it is really important that we have this provision in place. I do welcome it. Obviously there are further Stages to come on the Bill itself but it is a step forward in this area. It is important that the commitment is upheld to keep it under review. It is new legislation and we need to see how it plays out. Ultimately, we need to ensure that it is protecting those who are most vulnerable, particularly women, migrants, those whose first language might not be English and those who are living in poverty. As we need to ensure it is working for them, a review of it will be needed. I thank the Minister for his collaboration, openness and proactivity in relation this area.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 35, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

“(2) A person who, being a landlord or licensor of relevant accommodation that is let or licensed in exchange for payment, solicits or importunes another person to engage in sexual activity with any person in lieu of, or in exchange for a reduction in, payment in respect of the tenancy or licence shall be guilty of an offence.”.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 35, line 38, to delete “in lieu of payment” and substitute “in lieu of, or in exchange for a reduction in, payment”.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 36, line 6, to delete “in lieu of payment” and substitute “in lieu of, or in exchange for a reduction in, payment”.

Amendment No. 32 is in the names of Senators Higgins, Ruane, Stephenson and Black. Senator Harmon is moving it on their behalf.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 37, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“(d) the area does not contain any street furniture incorporating advertisements, apart from the name of the licensed premises, that are visible to members of the public, unless with the prior consent of the relevant local authority;”.

Amendment No. 32 relates to the Bill's provisions regarding the licensing of outdoor seating areas in licensed premises. Through the amendment, the Civil Engagement Group seeks to prevent the erection of street furniture containing advertisements in outdoor seating areas unless prior consent has been provided by the relevant local planning authority. The Civil Engagement Group has stated that the Minister will acknowledge and understand that if we walk around the city we will see outdoor areas of many licensed premises that contain street furniture such as umbrellas, canopies, awnings, barriers or guardrails that contain advertisements for brands and companies other than for the licensed premises itself. In the majority of circumstances these advertisements are for alcohol brands that pay for street furniture in exchange for their brand names being included on them. There is a public health rationale for this amendment as the subtle and unregulated erection of these advertisements is in conflict with the advertising codes for alcoholic beverages as set out in the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018, with particular respect to the watersheds that prevent advertisements for alcoholic products being broadcast at different times during the day and the displaying of advertisements for alcoholic products near public transport stops, crèches, schools and playgrounds.

There is an additional rationale for the amendment in relation to the visual impact that branded street furniture has in the public realm. The public realm in Ireland tends to be quite cluttered when compared with many of our counterparts in Europe. One only needs to walk around Dublin city centre to see this.

While there are laudable aesthetic considerations in reducing unnecessary visual clutter, the primary concern relates to the legibility of public spaces and, therefore, their accessibility for people who have difficulty navigating the built environment. With this in mind, the CEG proposes that we should attempt to reduce unnecessary clutter in the built environment wherever possible.

While recognising the financial considerations in terms of licensed premises accepting complementary street furniture from alcohol beverage companies, the CEG believes the primary consideration must be about how this corporate branded furniture interfaces with the community through the public realm. This amendment would ensure that the street furniture contained in licensed outdoor areas could not contain corporate branding other for the licensed premises itself, limiting the use of our public realm as an unregulated advertising billboard. I moved this amendment on behalf of the Civil Engagement Group but I will withdraw it at this stage.

I thank the Senators for their proposed amendment. The amendment concerns Part 14 of the Bill which relates to outdoor seating areas for licensed premises. Colleagues will be aware that since 2020, Ministers for justice have come to the Houses of the Oireachtas every six months, looking for the extension of these measures that were introduced during Covid-19. It is sensible that we keep them on a permanent basis as it does improve the quality of life and enjoyment that people can have to be able to sit outside on the infrequent days that we get good weather. It should be permanently on the Statute Book. If it is enacted, it will mean that we will not have those resolutions coming back to be voted on in the Seanad and the Dáil every six months.

The amendments put forward by Senators Higgins, Ruane and Stephenson are unnecessary when we look at the current legislative framework. A street furniture licence is issued at the discretion of the local authority under section 254 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. It will be issued under the Planning and Development Act 2024 when the relevant provisions of that Act are commenced. Under section 46 of this Bill, a street furniture licence is defined as "a licence granted to a licensee of a licensed premises under section 254 of the Act of 2000 or section 13 of the Act of 2024 in respect of tables and chairs, prescribed under section 254(1)(g) of the Act of 2000 or section 13(2)(h) of the Act of 2024, situated outside the premises".

Licensees who are granted a street furniture licence under the provisions of this Bill are bound by the provisions of section 254 of the 2000 Act. Compliance with the terms and conditions of a street furniture licence, including those in respect of advertising, is mandatory. A breach of those conditions can result in the revocation of the street furniture licence which could have serious repercussions for a licensee. Non-compliance with a street furniture licence can ground an objection to an application for a renewal of that licensee's intoxicating liquor licence. Accordingly, the amendment is not necessary as we already deal with that in our legislation.

On section 51, the Labour Party wholeheartedly welcomes this legislation but there are some outstanding issues which we wish to hear the Minister respond to. These issues were previously raised by my colleague, Deputy Nash, in the Dáil. A key issue is that this legislation needs to take account of members of the Defence Forces who received convictions under military law. These people cannot be excluded from this disregard proposal.

Another issue is that we need to broaden the scope of who can submit an application on behalf of a deceased person. We need to be conscious that during the last century, gay people were often shunned, excluded or otherwise disconnected from close familial connections. That needs to be taken into account by allowing a wider network of people to submit an application to this scheme on behalf of a deceased person.

This Bill should also include an acknowledgement that where an application is not made, a person who had a relevant conviction should be generally regarded as exonerated. This is really important in light of the discriminatory nature of their conviction. I wish to hear the Minister's assurances on these matters, and, failing that, I will look at bringing forward further amendments on Report Stage.

I again acknowledge Karl Hayden, who is in the Gallery, and who has been a long-time campaigner in relation to this issue. Brian Sheehan and Kieran Rose, who visited this House yesterday, have been closely following this debate and advocating for these changes for many years, along with my colleagues in Labour LGBT, a very active section within our party. We have come to this point through a lot of campaigning and courage over the years from many different campaigners and many people who have spoken out, as well as the families and friends of those who had a conviction. It is important that we get it right, and it is welcome that progress is being made. I commend my colleague, Deputy Nash, on spearheading this over the years. He has done enormous work on this issue.

I also want to speak on Part 15 of the Bill. This is an important part of the legislation that we are putting through the House today on Committee Stage. This is the part that deals with the disregard of certain historical convictions and other determinations. I also welcome Karl Hayden to the Gallery and recognise the work done by Kieran Rose, Brian Sheehan and others over the years in respect of this scheme.

Similarly, many Members of the Oireachtas have been pushing this for many years. Again, I decided that I would expedite it through that great mechanism known as a "miscellaneous provisions Bill". It has been very effective in terms of getting legislation enacted that has been proposed and discussed for many years. My advice to anyone who becomes Ministers for justice in the future is to use the miscellaneous provisions Bill to get things done promptly because before they know it, they will not be Minister for justice, and their opportunity will be gone.

It is extremely important that we have a disregard scheme to recognise the unfairness that was done to men since the foundation of the State in 1922 because of an inherent aspect of their personality which was their sexuality. It is important that we do this by way of a disregard scheme, which, in a way, is better than a pardon as it disregards them and recognises that they should never have been imposed in the first place.

The scheme, as the Members will see, which is set out in Part 15, is complicated scheme but it allows a relatively simple procedure to operate for applications that can be made for a disregard. When this was first being considered by me in the Dáil, I thought that maybe the way to deal with it was do something like they did in the UK in respect of the miscarriage of justice that operated for those who were involved in the post office prosecutions many years ago, and that we would just introduce legislation to say that anyone convicted of the offences, which will be scheduled, should have those offences disregarded.

It was then sensibly and importantly pointed out to me by officials that we have to be careful because there may been people who were convicted of such offences where there was non-consensual sexual activity. Of course, the people advocating for this would not like to see that happen because what really want to protect and disregard is those men who were involved in consensual sexual activity. For that reason, we have put in place a scheme that requires an application being made. There is a review process in it. Persons can also make applications on behalf of persons who are deceased. Once we get this enacted, and measures are starting already, we want to see this operational as quickly as possible. I am having discussions with others in respect of how we can get that done.

Senator Harmon mentioned those in the military. This issue was raised with me in the Dáil and I responded to it. The first thing to respond to is the question of whether the scheme covers convictions handed down by military courts, and the answer is "Yes." The definition of "relevant conviction" or "caution" covers convictions recorded by a court of criminal or military jurisdiction. A person who was convicted by court martial of buggery, or one of the other listed offences listed in the scheme, may apply for a disregard on the same basis as a person convicted in a civilian court.

However, there is another more pertinent question in respect of the military, which is why the scheme does not include the military misconduct offences recommended by the working group. Senators may be aware that the working group, which prepared a very detailed report in respect of this issue, recommended that the scheme should include certain military misconduct offences, such as disgraceful or scandalous conduct or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline under the Defence Act 1954 and its predecessor, the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act 1923.

During the course of the discussion and consultation on the draft heads, significant legal concerns were raised about including any case in which a person was court-martialed for military misconduct. On careful consideration, I concluded that these offences could not appropriately be included, and there are two reasons for this. First, it would be legally questionable but also impracticable, especially at this remove, to attempt to determine whether a particular court martial was brought purely because of the homosexual nature of an act, rather than because it involved a disciplinary infraction, such as abuse of rank. This would equally have been the case if the act had been heterosexual in nature. Second, the relevant misconduct offences under the 1954 Act remain in force and, according to the Department of Defence, continue to be used today. Their inclusion would open the possibility for misconduct convictions right up to the present day and into the future to be relitigated under a scheme intended to address a historical injustice. Equally, to impose a cut-off date, such as the 1993 decriminalisation date, would almost certainly be challenged as arbitrary and unfair. For those reasons, I consider that the inclusion of these offences would not be legally or operationally viable. However, military convictions for the repealed offences of buggery, attempted buggery, gross indecency and importuning are within the scope of the scheme.

I am also conscious that there is an amendment due in respect of section 53, which was also an issue raised by Senator Harmon, but I will respond to that when it arises.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 45, line 2, after “relative” to insert “, partner, or other demonstrably trusted person to the relevant person”

I am moving this amendment on behalf of the Civil Engagement Group, with its permission. I will speak to the amendment initially. It seeks, on page 45, line 2 of the Bill, after "relative", to insert "partner, or other demonstrably trusted person to the relevant person". The amendment proposes to extend the provision that allows for relatives of a deceased person to apply for the disregard of convictions or determinations against them to the person's surviving partner or another demonstrably trusted person. As drafted, the Bill prevents persons other than close relatives of the deceased person from applying for a disregard of historic convictions or determinations. The disregard scheme is designed to allow individuals or their representatives to apply to have historic convictions for consensual same-sex sexual activity to be disregarded. The Bill, as drafted, refers only to a relative in setting out who may act on behalf of a relevant person. It fails to take account of the lived realities of many LGBTQIA+ people, particularly those who are elderly or who have sadly already deceased. I outlined my own concerns in this regard under the previous relevant section. Amendment No. 33 seeks to address this by broadening the definition to include a "partner, or other demonstrably trusted person to the relevant person". The amendment seeks to ensure that the process by which a historic conviction can be disregarded or expunged is accessible, inclusive and reflective of the lived realities of LGBTQIA+ people. It acknowledges that many historically relied-on partners are chosen family rather than relatives, with whom they may have had strained relationships or from whom they may have been estranged. Having moved this amendment on behalf of the Civil Engagement Group, I will withdraw it after the Minister has responded.

As amendment No. 33 is the only amendment to this important part of this legislation, I might respond to it. As Senator Harmon has said, the amendment concerns section 53(1)(d), which provides that where there is no immediate family member willing or able to apply for a disregard in respect of a relevant person who is deceased, another relative may make such an application provided there is no objection from an immediate family member. The proposed amendment suggests that we provide that in addition to a relative, such an application may also be made by a "partner, or other demonstrably trusted person to the relevant person". It is important to look at the very broad definition of "relative" contained within section 51 of the legislation. It states:

“relative” means, in relation to a relevant person who is deceased, a brother, step-brother, sister, step-sister, grandchild, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, grandniece or grandnephew of the relevant person.

The amendment proposes that this would now include a "partner, or other demonstrably trusted person to the relevant person". While I accept the good intentions of the proposed amendment, there are several reasons I cannot accept it. First, partners are already captured in the Bill. In fact, they are included in the definition of "immediate family member" in section 51, which is something I should have referred to a few moments ago. The definition in question refers to a "civil partner, cohabitant, partner or child of the relevant person". This means that such people are included in the first order category of persons who may make an application on behalf of a deceased person, rather than in the relatives category, which the Senator's amendment would effectively align them with and consign them to. A relative, as defined in the Bill, may only make an application where there is no objection from an immediate family member.

A second difficulty with the amendment is that the term "demonstrably trusted person to the relevant person" is a very vague term. It could present significant difficulties for statutory interpretation or in practice when determining what is meant by "demonstrably trusted". How do we demonstrate the person was "demonstrably trusted" by the deceased person? How is it to be assessed and applied in a consistent way?

Third, and fundamentally, when it comes to deceased persons, there may in some cases be real privacy concerns and other sensitivities around reopening what may be a painful chapter of family history for the surviving families or partner of the deceased. It may be deeply personal or divisive within the family. It is not necessarily a matter in which someone external, such as a friend of the deceased, should get involved, regardless of how close they may have been to the deceased. Equally, in my view, what makes a disregard for a deceased person truly meaningful is where it is sought by someone with an indisputable and tangible link to the deceased person, whether by blood, marriage or a committed intimate relationship, which of course includes partner or civil partner.

For these reasons, the question of seeking a disregard for a deceased person should ultimately be a matter for those persons specified in the legislation. It is also worth bearing in mind that many comparable schemes in other jurisdictions do not make any provision for disregard on behalf of deceased persons or are very limited in who may apply in such cases. The Bill, as drafted, strikes an appropriate balance by enabling applications from a wide range of family members, partners and relatives. I know the Senator has expressed her intention to withdraw the amendment, but I just wanted to make those points on it.

Pursuant to Standing Order 165, it is reported to the Seanad that the Title has been amended.

When is it proposed to take the next Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Next Tuesday at 12.30 p.m.

Is that agreed? Agreed.