Alan Kelly
Tipperary North · Labour Party · Ireland
“I have never, in my time in here, nearly 20 years, seen legislation so mental as regards the breadth and depth of issues. It is an A to Z of issues. Many of them could have been Bills on their own, while some of them could have been grouped together. The depth and breadth of issues here, however, is phenomenal.”
“I will not be opposing any amendments. Most of them are very technical, and a few of them are on significant issues. As I said previously, I believe in miscellaneous Bills. I brought them in myself. I have no issue with them, but this is one of the most mental Bills I have ever seen.”
“This is kind of like a repeat speech from when we previously discussed this issue. The motion is erroneous and mean spirited. The real question for the country is where these people are going to go. The options are not there.”
“It was thought that this would happen later, but so many people I know will be so thankful for and welcoming of this aspect of the legislation. They will be in with us later tonight. The issue in relation to counselling notes is one we really had to have so much discussion about. It was a very difficult discussion.”
“I acknowledge what the Minister said about my colleague, Senator Laura Harmon. She came to the Minister in relation to the sex-for-rent issue. I have to acknowledge the fact that the Minister has always commended her on this issue. She has always been a strong campaigner on this issue given her history of involvement in student politics.”
“It shows that they have worked. I do not see why, in the spirit of where we are and after everything we have said about the war in Ukraine, we are actually going to go and take this away now.”
The complete record
Every one of 548 lines we hold for Alan Kelly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“I would not like to see that again because it made very little sense as regards the timing and how the other Minister participated in a Bill brought forward by the Minister for justice. In the Labour Party, having gone through all the amendments, most are very technical. We will not oppose the amendments and will support the Bill.”
“It was thought that this would happen later, but so many people I know will be so thankful for and welcoming of this aspect of the legislation. They will be in with us later tonight. The issue in relation to counselling notes is one we really had to have so much discussion about. It was a very difficult discussion. It was very intricate and very tricky. The test of time will apply. The jury is out - pardon the pun - in relation to this issue. I hope we have done the public the best service we can in relation to that issue. I am not going to rehash all the components because it came down to one or two words in the end; I just hope we are. As regards the aid to civil powers, the fact that has come in under this measure and the timing of it is a very strange development as regards how this Bill was brought forward.”
“I acknowledge what the Minister said about my colleague, Senator Laura Harmon. She came to the Minister in relation to the sex-for-rent issue. I have to acknowledge the fact that the Minister has always commended her on this issue. She has always been a strong campaigner on this issue given her history of involvement in student politics. I also acknowledge the National Women’s Council of Ireland, NWCI, Women’s Aid, the Irish Council for International Students, ICOS, and the Rape Crisis Centre. I must acknowledge Ann Murphy of The Examiner too. In relation to LGBT and the issue of historical convictions, my colleague, Deputy Ged Nash, has worked on this issue for over a decade, which the Minister has acknowledged as well, along with other colleagues in this House. It is a very important and historic night.”
“I have never, in my time in here, nearly 20 years, seen legislation so mental as regards the breadth and depth of issues. It is an A to Z of issues. Many of them could have been Bills on their own, while some of them could have been grouped together. The depth and breadth of issues here, however, is phenomenal. A few more have been thrown into this evening. There is also the matter of the structure by which so many amendments were being brought forward on different Stages. At times, it was actually quite difficult even to follow, which is never good, to be fair. I have said all this before, so I am not going to repeat it. I would not like to see this happening consistently. Having said all that, however, we will support the Bill. It is commendable that this House has finally dealt with a number of areas in the legislation.”
“I will not be opposing any amendments. Most of them are very technical, and a few of them are on significant issues. As I said previously, I believe in miscellaneous Bills. I brought them in myself. I have no issue with them, but this is one of the most mental Bills I have ever seen. The Minister laughed the last time I said that, and he is laughing this time. In fairness to him, I got what he said last time. We are getting to the summer break, so spirits are high and all of that. We could equally be here criticising the Minister for not doing stuff. Here we are on the second-last evening before the recess, and we are going through four different Bills. This is commendable on the part of the Minister, his officials, the Department, and all of that. This Bill, though, is so mental regarding the number of areas it covers.”
“I know it is very unusual and it would not change anything substantive but it would be a longer timeframe, which would certainly be far more palatable to us all.”
“I agree with my colleagues. I believe five years is to short, to be honest. I find that no argument has been made for the three years at all. It seems incredibly short. The idea that a person who commits such an offence can apply for this after three years does not sit well with me. I do not think would sit well with the majority of Members in this House. I note the Minister's choice of words regarding rehabilitation. I understand where he is coming from in relation to his position as the Minister for justice but it is a separate discussion. It is not relatable to the time period of three years in any way, shape or form. In this spirit of collegiality, the Minister should consider this amendment and accept it.”
“We need to embrace the fact that many Ukrainians are participating in Irish life and contributing so much here in Ireland in many various ways - economically, socially, educationally, etc. From the perspective of it being the right thing to do, phasing this out now and doing it in this manner is quite mean spirited. It lacks consistency in terms of what the Government is saying about the war in Ukraine. It certainly goes against all available data that we have at this moment in time.”
“It shows that they have worked. I do not see why, in the spirit of where we are and after everything we have said about the war in Ukraine, we are actually going to go and take this away now. It is downright hypocritical to do this on the one hand and, on the other, to embrace the Ukrainian President and speak in the manner in which we do. Why are we making this change for something that is pretty low - €600? Why are we deciding that we want to get rid of this and phase it out? We are a non-militarily aligned country. We are a country that does not participate in wars. We are neutral, but we are not neutral when it comes to our views on this war. We have also said quite clearly that we would support the Ukrainian people. In that capacity, surely this is the manner in which we should do it.”
“This is kind of like a repeat speech from when we previously discussed this issue. The motion is erroneous and mean spirited. The real question for the country is where these people are going to go. The options are not there. It would be one thing to say we would do this if the options were there but we are going to be throwing tens of thousands of people into a situation where there are very few options. In many cases, there will be no options. As we all know, the private rental market is a mess. It is not going to be feasible or possible for these people to be accommodated in it. We will obviously be voting against the motion as well as the amendment that has been put down. The temporary protection orders have worked. The only data that we have available, as has previously been said, is from the Irish Red Cross.”
“There are the issues of transport fees, stationery fees, the ridiculous voluntary contributions, transition year, branded school uniforms and €300 for a PE uniform, which is insane. My colleague, Deputy Eoghan Kenny, whom I want to commend, has outlined what we need to do to deal with these issues, namely, capitation grants, ICT grants, back to school allowances and all of that. I ask the Minister to please listen to the Labour Party. Our party truly believes that, when we in a republic say that we have free education, it should really mean free education.”
“If a certain percentage of students in the school have these devices, instead of saying they are not mandatory, we should ensure everybody is on a level playing field as we head into the 2026-2027 school year. That is the way we should be looking at it. In many schools, there is a digital divide, which is completely and utterly unacceptable. Many people come to me about the ongoing costs they are facing. One woman told me her daughter is going into TY and the cost the family is budgeting for is well over €1,000. They considered not letting her do TY - letting her instead advance straight into fifth year - because they would not be able to afford it. That is not a choice any family should be having to make.”
“If we truly live in a Republic, we need to deal with the myth of free education. I have two children going to secondary school: one in TY and the other doing the junior cert. I have been through a lot of the cycle. My wife and I can afford the costs imposed but, over the summer, numerous families will be coming to my clinics saying they cannot afford what is ahead of them. In a Republic and a wealthy country like ours, we need to call out this myth. I acknowledge the advances made on schoolbooks but when we talk about the cost of laptops and iPads, there is no point in telling parents about the circular and the Minister saying they are not mandatory. There is not a single parent who does not want to do the best for their children.”
“We need to ensure that this does not become open to abuse by vigilantes. We would have liked to have seen more details provided for in the register itself, ensuring that any possibility of misidentification was certainly minimised, and ideally zero. How can we ensure that there will not be those who will try to do something like this to affect people’s reputations? Most importantly, we must recognise that this is not a silver bullet, as I said previously. We need to see a greater holistic approach across society and greater urgency in tackling domestic and gender-based violence. This Bill is very welcome. I have raised questions, and, similar to previous speakers, I also have questions in relation to timelines. We will, however, be supporting this Bill wholeheartedly.”
“This is a very sensitive and difficult question to answer but it is something that we need to discuss here. How do we also ensure that the need for victims' consent is not manipulated, with victims being put under pressure or coerced not to give their consent? This is a real question that we must address. We must make sure that the supports are in place to allow victims to safely make an independent, informed decision. In other words, what supports will be there to ensure that victims feel they have the capacity, strength and support to be able to do it? It is an important consideration. Will there be wraparound supports? Will there be other supports in this regard? The Minister might outline them further. My colleagues in the Seanad raised the issue of possible misidentification.”
“When this was being discussed previously, when we looked at it in the committee, the variation in approaches and the manner in which the Minister was going to go about this were things we looked at. We do understand why he has taken a different approach. However, we would like to hear some reassurance from him on a couple of points. The information to be included on the register is, by definition, limited in nature, relating only to serious convictions. Of course, though, the absence of information should not necessarily mean an absence of concern. The question is: how we can deal with this issue? How do we make sure that somebody does not take a false sense of security from finding out that their partner or prospective partner is not listed?”
“I am sure that those who drafted the legislation, the Minister, the Attorney General, and his officials, have gone through this. I can see the risks in both models. DVD schemes like Clare’s law rely on the police providing information. This carries the possibility of there being delays, which would be a real issue and something I am sure the Minister was conscious of. A report in the UK shows many women waiting for hundreds of days for disclosure, which would not be acceptable. Direct contact is also typically required with the police to initiate the process, something that can be a barrier, particularly for those who are marginalised, vulnerable, in difficult situations, have communication issues, etc. The efficacy of DVD schemes has been questioned, so we understand why the Minister has gone down the road of taking a different approach.”
“It is probably something we should have dealt with a number of years ago. There have been different approaches to this issue in different jurisdictions. I looked up what the UK did with Clare’s law, and there have been various different variations across the EU in respect of what we are bringing in here this week. It is essential, however, that we make sure what is being done here is indeed the best and most effective way forward as we see it within our own domestic law. In the UK, Clare’s law put in place a domestic violence disclosure, DVD, scheme, which allows the police to disclose and proactively inform people of their partner's relevant past convictions. The new register of domestic violence under this Bill before us today differs from the UK precedent in important ways. Being honest, there are probably risks inherent either way.”
“This Bill is critically important and absolutely necessary but it is not, in the broader sense, going to change the way in which we need to fight domestic and gender-based violence. There is so much that needs to be done outside of this Bill, preventively and educationally. This commences at a very early age in relation to education and the issues around consent. I am glad to see that much progress has been made in recent years on a lot of the changes from an educational perspective. This needs to be holistic and everywhere. It needs to be in every factor in society so that the message gets out that any form of this behaviour is completely and utterly unacceptable. In relation to the legislation itself, people should have the chance to know if their partner has a history of serious domestic violence. This is sensible.”
“I welcome Jason Poole and thank him for his incredible advocacy and work in pushing the Legislature to reach this day. It is commendable. He has changed Ireland as part of his work. Well done. These were tragic and terrible circumstances for him but his advocacy has been incredible. A lot of the time in here, we give out about one another, and all of that, but I have to commend those who are in this space, including the Opposition spokespeople and the Minister, on the manner in which this legislation is being brought forward in a fairly timely manner, as well as those who drafted it. We will have some discussion tomorrow in relation to a few timelines but I believe, collectively, that we are all on the one page and for the right reasons. I acknowledge that.”
“This time next year when we come to debate these motions yet again, it would be far more useful for us to use the time to debate the merits of such published draft proposals if they come, and what further steps or reforms are still needed, or what changes collectively we as a Chamber or Oireachtas need to put in place. I also encourage the Minister of State to ensure that when her Department does get around to formulating more concrete proposals, it seeks the technical assistance of the UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights to ensure the draft legislation is benchmarked against the best applicable international standards.”
“As the Labour Party set out in our most recent manifesto, we need to ensure non-jury trials are the exception and introduce measures to address concerns about jury tampering or intimidation. Modern technology has a crucial role to play in the implementation of reforms and could be used to facilitate such things as remote juries, like Scotland used not so Iong ago. That is why when the Minister and his Department eventually get around to publishing the heads of a Bill or a detailed framework for reform, it is vital that they carefully consider the proposals from the minority report. Significant issues around belief, evidence, prescription, disclosure and the publication of decisions will also need to be addressed in any reforms.”
“The offence would remain in place and be triable in the ordinary way and the DPP would retain its discretion to transfer any particular trial to the Special Criminal Court. Looking to the minority recommendations, however, in a scenario where there is a permanent standing special court, the Labour Party would therefore support the minority recommendation that decisions on trial venues should be made by a judge and not the DPP. This should be based on clear criteria set out in the legislation that recognises the exceptional nature of a non-jury trial. This will provide an added layer of accountability and indeed, transparency. The review group also recommended many other reforms and safeguards, including the repeal of many outdated provisions and offences.”
“The Peart review minority report went further and recommended the abolition of the Special Criminal Court. The majority report supported its retention but also recommended that there should be no blanket referral of offences to a non-jury court. Instead, the DPP should use the power it already has to decide on a case-by-case basis whether there is sufficient threat to the administration of justice to justify sending a particular trial to a non-jury court. Page 12 of the report states: the current system of schedule offences under which certain offences are automatically or presumptively tried by a non-jury court should be abolished. Instead, the decision as to whether a non-jury court is used should, in every instance, be based on an assessment of the circumstances pertaining to the particular case.”
“Last year, the Minister set out the direction he was going and that he broadly accepted the majority report recommendations to repeal and replace the Offences against the State Act. He indicated that new legislation would not be ready by now but failed to clearly set out what timeframe he would adopt for reform. Maybe in her reply the Minister of State might be able to give us some indication of same. We have had the Hederman report in 2002, the Peart majority and minority reports, various other reports, reviews and recommendations, and the Law Reform Commission report on jury service in 2013. I could go on and on. The Oireachtas was called upon to repeal the existing Acts and replace them with a single consolidated Act containing significant reforms.”
“In the past, the Labour Party has also raised the absence of sufficient information to support an informed finding as to the adequacy or otherwise of the ordinary courts to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order in relation to offences under the Act. Every year the Dáil and Seanad are asked to declare that the ordinary criminal courts are inadequate and that a jury trial is somewhat not fit to deal with particular offences. This decision should be based on more evidence than we have ever seen provided when asked to make this declaration. We are never given any information as to the adequacy of the criminal courts or on the risk of intimidation of jurors. It is three years since the publication of the independent review of the offences against the State Acts.”
“To have this legislation on that basis is unacceptable and a failure of the State. Threats from crime and terrorism are constantly evolving and our legal framework must do so too. We said it last year, and no doubt we will end up repeating it next year given the way things are going, that there is no need for an annual vote on some of the provisions we will vote on in relation to this. These should be part of the permanent criminal code. Withholding information about the commission of a crime should be a permanent offence, and directing an unlawful criminal organisation should also be a crime rather than regarded as an emergency provision.”
“As the State closes in on individuals hiding away in the Middle East, an issue I raised here in the Dáil fairly directly with then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar on 11 June 2020, this legal framework while outdated and flawed in places provides vital tools to take on organised international crime. While we in the Labour Party will still vote for the final motions, the Minister of State will know that the Labour Party has long argued for and supported the need for comprehensive reform of the law in this area. Others have spoken before about how jurisdictions in other countries deal with jury intimidation. It is long beyond time that we as a country dealt with this issue. That the State is not able to provide safeguards around jury intimidation is, frankly, unacceptable in modern times.”
“As this is my first engagement with the Minister of State, I wish her the best of luck in her new role. We will be supporting Deputy Carthy's motion again this year. It is just a few weeks since we debated the Bill to allow the State to support and participate in the work of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. As we debate these motions again this year, it is vital to remember why we have these annual reauthorisations. We remember the victims of the Omagh atrocity and we think of their families, their friends and all those who suffered through the violence of the Troubles. We all know too well the impact of the sale of illegal drugs and the violence that creates and brings to so many communities around Ireland.”
“It would address the issue of how to deal with counselling notes. It would also ensure that victims are protected. It meets all of the requirements we need to meet within the limitations of what we can do constitutionally. That is why I have pushed the amendment forward again. At this late hour, I ask the Minister to reconsider this and to look at it again because, as I said on Committee Stage, I do not think anybody is going to be happy with the way the Bill is currently drafted by Government. Even if they are willing to walk through and vote for it, I do not think the Minister's own Government colleagues will be happy. As an Opposition Member, I am trying to create a compromise and to ensure we have something we can all support.”
“I am definitely not going to go through it in the same level of detail as I did on Committee Stage, but it is proposed that panel members would create a narrative and that there would be limitations on the information provided in that narrative. That is the format by which we should deal with counselling notes. As a consequence, victims would not be retraumatised and counsellors would be protected. That is what I am trying to achieve. That is what the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and the Labour Party are trying to achieve. It is why we spent so much time supporting this, speaking on it and voting on it on Committee Stage. I believe there is spiritual support for this within the Minister's own party and within the Government. We believe this extends to the limits of what is achievable constitutionally.”
“When it comes to the actual detail, it is a question of the independent review panel and what is being proposed in the legislation versus the phrase the Minister has introduced, "in the interests of justice", which moved the pendulum. That is where the debate was the last day. We are back here without any change so I have submitted the amendment again. In spirit, all of us, whether in government or opposition, are of the one mind as to how we need to deal with this. Counselling notes should not be used. It is as simple as that. As legislators, we need to ensure we deal with the issue in a manner that meets constitutional, legal and technical requirements.”
“We should be spending hours discussing this instead of 26 minutes. I am not going to take up all the time because I have spoken on this at length in the committee. On behalf of the Labour Party, I am putting forward an amendment drafted by Lorcan Staines SC for the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. It proposes a compromise to deal with this highly sensitive issue. Our justice committee had harrowing, very upsetting and detailed evidence given to us directly. Many of us in that portfolio will also have heard about it personally. There is a pendulum here that we have to deal with. We must consider the constitutionality of what we are trying to achieve. I respect that. However, we must also push it as far as we possibly can. That is what this amendment tries to do.”
“(19) Where any applicable record or counselling record containing opinion, interpretation, or third-party summaries is admitted in evidence, the judge shall issue a warning to the jury that such material is indirect, interpretive, may contain factual errors and should not be treated as a verbatim account of the complainant’s words or actions in particular where the complainant did not have any opportunity to review or correct such contents. (20) The Minister shall, within 18 months of the commencement of this section, conduct a review of its operation and lay a report of that review before both Houses of the Oireachtas.”.”.”
“(17) For the purposes of a hearing pursuant to subsection (8), all persons, other than officers of the court, persons directly concerned in the hearing and such other persons (if any) as the court may determine, shall be excluded from the court during the hearing. (18) In addition to the meaning assigned to that expression by section 27 of the Act of 1995, ‘legal aid’ in that Act means representation by a solicitor or barrister, engaged by the Legal Aid Board under section 11 of that Act, on behalf of a complainant or witness in relation to an application pursuant to this section.”
“(c) An applicable record that is disclosed to the accused pursuant to subsection (11), (12) or (13) must only be used for the purposes of the criminal proceedings for which the record has been disclosed and may not be disclosed to any person without leave of the court. (15) The court shall provide reasons for ordering, or refusing to order, disclosure of the content of an applicable record pursuant to subsection (11) or (12). (16) Where, upon application by the accused, the court considers that the interests of justice require the making of a disclosure application after the period permitted in subsection (3), the court may direct that such an application may be made.”
“(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), one or more of the following conditions may be included in an order made pursuant to subsection (11), (12) or (13)— (i) that a part of the content of the applicable record be redacted, (ii) that a copy of the applicable record and not the original be disclosed, (iii) that the applicable record be viewed only at the offices of the court, (iv) that no copies, or only a limited number of copies, of the applicable record, be made, (v) that information concerning the address, telephone number or place of employment of any person named in the applicable record be redacted from the record, or (vi) that the applicable record be returned to the person who owns or controls the said record.”
“In the event that a complainant wishes to provide their consent of their own motion, such application should be made on notice to the prosecutor and the accused within 28 days of service of the book of evidence or the précis of evidence as the case may be. (14) (a) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (11), (12) or (13), in the interests of justice and to protect the right to privacy of any person to whom the applicable record relates, the court shall only grant disclosure of such specific material as is strictly necessary and the court may impose any condition it considers necessary on the disclosure of the record.”
“(12) The Court shall not order disclosure of the content of a counselling record to the accused, and where applicable, the prosecutor, unless the court is satisfied, having examined the record, that the information contained in the record cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means and there would be a real risk of an unfair trial in the absence of such disclosure. (13) The provisions within this section are mandatory. However, a complainant may, either in response to an application under this section or of their own motion through their own legal representation, indicate their consent to the disclosure of an applicable record to the court. Such consent should be fully-informed, based on legal advice and should be given directly to the court.”
“(11) Subject to subsections (12), (13) and (14), a court shall not, after the hearing referred to in subsection (8), order disclosure of the content of the applicable record concerned to the accused, and where applicable, the prosecutor, unless the court is satisfied, having examined the record, that— (a) the record is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial, (b) the information contained in the record cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means, and (c) one or both of the following apply: (i) there would be a real risk of an unfair trial in the absence of such disclosure; (ii) it is otherwise in the interests of justice to so order.”
“(10) In determining, at the hearing referred to in subsection (8), whether the content of the applicable record should be disclosed to the accused under subsection (11), the court shall take the following factors, in particular, into account: (a) the extent to which the record is necessary for the accused to defend the charges against him or her; (b) the probative value of the record; (c) the reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the record; (d) the potential prejudice to the right to privacy of any person to whom the record relates; (e) the public interest in encouraging the reporting of sexual offences; (f) the public interest in encouraging complainants of sexual offences to engage with the provision of services by a child protection professional, a competent person, a medical professional, a social care worker or a social worker; (g) the effect of the determination on the integrity of the trial process; (h) the likelihood that disclosing, or requiring the disclosure of, the record will cause harm to the complainant including the nature and extent of that harm; (i) whether disclosure of the applicable records is sought on the basis of a discriminatory belief or basis.”
“(7) The court may, at any time, order that a disclosure application be notified to any person to whom it believes the applicable record may relate. (8) The court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the content of the applicable record should be disclosed to the accused. (9) The person who has possession or control of the applicable record, the complainant and any other person to whom the applicable record relates shall be entitled to appear and be heard at the hearing referred to in subsection (8).”
“(6) Where the court orders, under subsection (5)(a), that a hearing referred to in subsection (8) be held— (a) the court may order that the person who has possession or control of the applicable record concerned shall produce the record to the prosecutor not later than the beginning of such period in advance of the hearing as may be prescribed in rules of court but the court may not make such an order in respect of counselling records, (b) the court may order that the person who has possession or control of the applicable record concerned, including a counselling record, shall produce the applicable record to the court only, in a confidential manner as prescribed in rules of court, and not later than the beginning of such period in advance of the hearing as may be prescribed in rules of court, and (c) without prejudice to subsection (7), the prosecutor shall, not later than the beginning of such period as may be prescribed in rules of court, notify the person who has possession or control of the applicable record concerned, the complainant, and any other person to whom the prosecutor believes the applicable record relates of the order of the court under subsection (5)(a) and, where applicable, paragraphs (a) and (b).”
“(4) A disclosure application under subsection (2) must be made within 28 days of service of the book of evidence (or the service of a précis of evidence in the District Court) and must be made on notice to the prosecutor or accused, as applicable. (5) Where a disclosure application is made under subsection (3), the court shall consider the application and where it is satisfied that the grounds relied upon in the application— (a) establish that the record is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial, the court shall order that a hearing referred to in subsection (8) be held, or (b) do not establish that the record is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial, the court shall refuse the application.”
“(3) Where, in criminal proceedings for a sexual offence, the prosecutor or the accused is of the opinion that an applicable record ought to be disclosed to the accused under subsection (11), the prosecutor or the accused, as the case may be, shall make an application (in this section referred to as a ‘disclosure application’), in writing, to the court setting out— (a) the specific applicable record sought, or particulars identifying same, (b) cogent reasons for seeking the applicable record which engage with the facts of the case, and (c) the grounds relied upon to establish that it is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial.”
“(2) There shall be a presumption against the disclosure of all applicable records. The presumption against disclosure may only be rebutted in accordance with subsection (11) and (12), furthermore— (a) applicable records may not be disclosed to the accused in proceedings for a sexual offence without the leave of the court in accordance with this section, and (b) no one shall request access to a counselling record nor shall a counselling record be disclosed to the prosecutor or to the accused in proceedings for a sexual offence without the leave of the court in accordance with this section.”
“(1) In this section— ‘Act of 1950’ means the Nurses Act 1950; ‘Act of 1985’ means the Nurses Act 1985; ‘Act of 1995’ means the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995; ‘Act of 2005’ means the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005; ‘Act of 2011’ means the Nurses and Midwives Act 2011; ‘applicable record’, in relation to criminal proceedings for a sexual offence, means a child protection record, a counselling record, a medical record or a social work record— (a) in relation to which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, (b) which was not compiled for the purposes of, or in contemplation of, the investigation into, or the prosecution of, the sexual offence concerned, and (c) whether or not the service the subject of the record was provided for remuneration; ‘child protection’ means an intervention or a series of interventions designed to safeguard children from abuse, neglect, violence, exploitation or harm and to promote their safety, wellbeing and rights; ‘child protection professional’ means a person who has undertaken training or study resulting in a qualification, or who has professional experience, relevant to child protection; ‘child protection record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means, by a person who was a child protection professional at the time of the making of the record, in the course of investigating or managing concerns, or carrying out assessments or interventions, in relation to the safety, welfare, or protection of a complainant when the complainant was a child; ‘competent person’ means a person who has undertaken training or study or has experience relevant to the process of counselling; ‘complainant’ means a person in respect of whom a sexual offence is alleged to have been committed; ‘counselling’ means listening to and giving verbal or other support or encouragement to a person, or advising or providing therapy or other treatment to a person; ‘counselling record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means, by a competent person in connection with the provision of counselling to a complainant; ‘court’ means the District Court, Circuit Criminal Court or the Central Criminal Court; ‘disclosure application’ has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (2); ‘medical professional’ means— (a) a registered medical practitioner, (b) a registered nurse, or (c) a registered midwife; ‘medical record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means, relating to the medical treatment of a complainant by, or ordered or initiated by, a person who was a medical professional at the time of the making of the record; ‘registered medical practitioner’, in relation to a particular point in time, means a person— (a) who was a registered medical practitioner within the meaning of section 2 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007, (b) whose name was entered in the General Register of Medical Practitioners established under section 26 of the Medical Practitioners Act 1978, or (c) who was registered in the Register of Medical Practitioners prepared and established under the Medical Practitioners Act 1927, at that point in time; ‘registered midwife’, in relation to a particular point in time, means a person whose name was entered in— (a) the midwives division of the register of nurses and midwives established under section 46(1) of the Act of 2011, (b) the midwives division of the register of nurses established under section 27 of the Act of 1985, or (c) the midwives division of the register of nurses maintained under section 41 of the Act of 1950, at that point in time; ‘registered nurse’, in relation to a particular point in time, means a person— (a) whose name was entered in the nurses division of the register of nurses and midwives established under section 46(1) of the Act of 2011, (b) other than a registered midwife, whose name was entered in the register of nurses established under section 27 of the Act of 1985, (c) other than a registered midwife, whose name was entered in the register of nurses maintained under section 41 of the Act of 1950, or (d) who was registered in the register kept in pursuance of the Nurses Registration (Ireland) Act 1919, at that point in time; ‘sexual offence’ means an offence referred to in the Schedule to the Sex Offenders Act 2001; ‘social care worker’— (a) in relation to a particular point in time prior to the establishment under section 36 of the Act of 2005 of the register of members of the profession of social care worker, means a person who was practising as such and who held a qualification that is listed opposite the profession of social care worker in the third column of Schedule 3 to the Act of 2005 or a qualification that is a corresponding qualification, within the meaning of Part 9 of that Act, to that qualification, or (b) in relation to a particular point in time following the establishment of that register, means a person whose name was entered in that register, at that point in time; ‘social worker’— (a) in relation to a particular point in time prior to the establishment under section 36 of the Act of 2005 of the register of members of the profession of social worker, means a person who was practising as such and who held a qualification that is listed opposite the profession of social worker in the third column of Schedule 3 to the Act of 2005 or a qualification that is a corresponding qualification, within the meaning of Part 9 of that Act, to that qualification, or (b) in relation to a particular point in time following the establishment of that register, means a person whose name was entered in that register, at that point in time; ‘social work record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means, by a person who was a social worker or social care worker at the time of the making of the record, as part of a professional practice relating to assessing or supporting the welfare of a complainant or any related intervention by the social worker or social care worker.”
“I move amendment No. 17: In page 18, to delete lines 31 to 35, to delete pages 19 to 22, and in page 23, to delete lines 1 to 18 and substitute the following: “Amendment of section 19A of Criminal Evidence Act 1992 16. (1) The Criminal Evidence Act 1992 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 19A: “Disclosure of third-party records in certain trials 19A.”
“This amendment makes it an offence to deliberately, and for an ongoing period, obstruct free movement of Members of the Houses of Oireachtas so that a person who, by violent means or any form of intimidation and without lawful authority, obstructs or impedes the freedom of movement to or from any place of a member of either House of the Oireachtas is guilty of an offence. I can guess the Minister’s response will be that this will also need broader consideration but my party and I believe that we need to look broadly at how we will ensure that people who are elected to these Houses can go about their business as representatives of the people of this country, while respecting protest, without being intimidated or unlawfully dealt with or violently threatened in any way, shape or form.”
“This relates to the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. It inserts a provision which relates to every one of us in the Dáil as well as Ministers and Senators. It relates to the obstruction of the free movement of Members of Houses of the Oireachtas. This is particularly pertinent because societally everything has changed. There has been numerous cases where people in this House have not been able to go about their business. We all know there are constitutional protections in relation to access to and from Dáil Éireann but there are also cases where Members of this House, including members of the Government in recent times, have been restricted in their movements for a period of time and the manner by which some people dealt with them was far from acceptable and An Garda Síochána may not have been available at the time.”