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 2 of 11.
“I move amendment No. 11: In page 9, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “PART 2 AMENDMENT OF NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 Amendment of Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 4. The Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 is amended by the insertion of the following section: “Obstructing free movement of member of House of Oireachtas 9A. 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 and is liable— (a) on summary conviction to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.”.”.”
“In conjunction with that, in order to protect An Garda Síochána, we also need to bring in legislation for pursuit and offences for pursuit where gardaí are being prosecuted on their own licences on the basis of pursuits. In some cases that is really wrong. On the basis of what the Minister said, that he will bring something forward, I will withdraw the amendment. If he does not I will and I hope he will support it.”
“I take the Minister's word for it. I will pursue this issue. I honestly believe we need to reach another bar not only when it comes to gardaí but all uniformed personnel. I am thinking of the intimidation of uniformed personnel in this country and the manner in which they are being treated, including off duty, and the way in which their families and homes are potentially targeted. We have reached a different threshold in relation to this issue in this country and we need to deal with it. There needs to be respect. The people who wear the uniforms obviously need to have respect as well and the great majority do. I am bringing this forward because I believe there is a need for it and the GRA has asked for it.”
“The Minister said that, as part of this miscellaneous Bill, which we have spoken about as so wide-ranging, that he would look at this with regard to this Stage. I am wondering if he has looked at it. I took on board what he said previously, but I resubmitted the amendment on the basis that he said he would look at it.”
“We spoke about this previously and the Minister said he would look at it, so I gave him time to look at it. I did not see anything coming forward in relation to this. We are trying to ensure that if members of An Garda Síochána or their family members are intimidated in any way in the performance of their duties, this would be an offence. We know very well, given what has happened in the recent past in our jurisdiction, with the way in which gardaí and their family members have been treated, with their houses having been targeted and how, at its national conference, the GRA referred to the manner in which members of An Garda Síochána have received significant intimidation when going about their lives off duty, that their capacity to function and perform as gardaí has been affected.”
“I move amendment No. 9: In page 9, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: PART 2 AMENDMENT OF POLICING, SECURITY AND COMMUNITY SAFETY ACT 2024 Amendment of Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 4. The Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 98: “Intimidation 98A. A person who attempts in any way to coerce or intimidate a member, or any other person, in connection with the performance by the member of his or her functions as such a member shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable— (a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both, or (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €30,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to both.”.”.”
“There may be a couple of issues there, particularly in relation to where statements could be made in support where there is no documentation available. The Minister might consider that.”
“The working group recommended that the State apology of 2018 be reiterated on the launch of this scheme, and that individualised letters of apology from the Minister be provided to successful applicants. That is not in the Bill. Is that something the Minister would consider? It is quite an emotional issue, so I think it would be very nice. It is not a must-do but it would be a nice thing to do, in fairness, given the topic we are talking about. The working group also recommended a fixed time limit for making applications. The Bill imposes a 24-month limitation period but I have read there that the Minister has discretion to extend that, so that is probably okay. They are my honest contributions.”
“Independent persons may seek information from public bodies but there is no formal statement procedure as a substitute where a person or persons would make a formal statement but where there are no records. There can be reasons why records cannot be found, which the Minister has spoken about himself before in relation to other matters. Is there a process where the Minister could consider that formal statements could constitute a submission to this? He might look at that in the Seanad because I think it is probably the most important point I am going to make here as regards any amendments to this. The review process the Minister has proposed in relation to a 28-day timeline is fine but it is different from what the review said as well. I have a couple of final points.”
“If nobody immediate is willing to put forward the case for somebody, can somebody who is a close friend do it? Is there any process? I ask because there will be circumstances like that, given the nature of what we are discussing. Is there any potential pathway for somebody to act on behalf of somebody who is deceased to honour their wish, if there was a wish, for this to be dealt with? The working group also devoted a dedicated chapter in the form of statements as the mechanism for cases where records no longer exist or are insufficient. It made specific recommendations on how such statements should be sought and assessed but the Bill does not contain an equivalent provision. So, there is no express mechanism for disregarding a conviction where no records can be found.”
“If that is going to be the Minister's style with regard to everything, that is fine. In many other scenarios they would have gone through some form of independent process to cross-check and review everything one step away. Ministers usually like to be one step away but in fairness to the Minister in this case, he is right in there. On having no first point-of-contact body with support and advocacy, it is more the advocacy part of it that I am on about. There will be a lot of emotion in this regard in many cases and there is no standing panel of assessors. The working group also proposed a hierarchical but flexible approach regarding representatives for deceased people. The query relates to the structure that is there for immediate family members, including cohabitants and partners, having a priority.”
“I just have a few brief comments to make. The issue in relation to the pre-1922 convictions is obviously different to what the working group said, which is a pity and the previous speaker spoke about military archives as well. How do we deal with that? The working group proposed a dedicated independent body as the first contact, modelled on the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC. This is the first time we are getting this component of the legislation put into this Bill. We will not go back and talk about that again. However, was that something the Minister considered or does everything have to be transmitted through the Department of justice and the Minister himself? Everything is basically being routed one way. Does the Minister think that is the best way of doing it?”
“However, since the ICC has not previously prosecuted in this regard, there is a possibility here, basically, of unintended consequences if the Government gets rid of the triple lock, and that is what I am trying to warn the Minister about.”
“I also acknowledge over a decade's work by my colleague Deputy Ged Nash who has been in the Minister's ear about this since he was appointed. It is very rare you get to say it about the person sitting beside you, but, as a colleague whom I have known for many years, Deputy Nash has continuously been on about this for well over a decade. I acknowledge that while he is present. The second issue is relates to the ICC Act and the Rome Statute. I want to reference part of this and, particularly, the issue of the four components in relation to the act of aggression. Where there is an act of aggression by a state, the crime requires that the act "by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations". Not every unlawful use of force will give rise to a manifest charter violation.”
“In addition, from the point of view of the administration of democracy, it is borderline impossible for us to do our jobs here because of the manner in which this is constructed with the cross-references, from a legislative point of view, the drafting, the manner in which we have to approach it and the volume of legislation covered.. Even versioning is a problem in relation to this Bill. In relation to the disregard of convictions for historical offences for people in same-sex relationships, I acknowledge all the work that has been done by many different people down through the years. I have named them in the House previously. I am delighted that the Minister is dealing with this issue and that he has honoured that commitment.”
“Yes, but if the Minister were sitting here a few years ago, there is no doubt he would be saying what I am saying. I recall quite clearly his criticism of the previous Minister for justice, whom he now sits beside, in relation to lots of legislation. I have to be honest about this. This is no way to do legislation. For instance, the disregard is such an important topic on its own. The issues in relation to the ICC Act and the Rome Statute are critical. They have potential domino impacts on the triple lock discussion, which I will point out in a second.”
“And other Departments, including the Department of Defence. It is a Who's Who. We are doing the ICC Act and the disregard of convictions for homosexuality-related offences today, and there are provisions relating to arrest warrants, prisons, the Minister's capacity to ask for Defence Forces' help, counselling notes, sex for rent, DNA, pepper spray, community service orders, face coverings - there is so much-----”
“I have the guts of 20 years' service as a national public representative, but this is the most mental Bill I have ever dealt with in here. It is crazy. There is lots of really good stuff in it but, as regards the structure of a Bill, it is beyond comprehension. It gives "miscellaneous" a new meaning. It is so diverse. It is not good practice; it is the worst kind of practice. I can nearly guarantee the Minister that there will be issues arising out of this legislation because it has not been scrutinised to the level required. I respect that time is of the essence with some of these provisions. I know there is pressure, particularly from the Opposition, in relation to a range of issues, for instance, the disregards being brought in today, which we 100% support, but this is no way to do it.”
“The idea that tickets.ie or any similar type of organisation can take millions of euro, put the money into its own account, hold it and then go wallop, just from a regulatory point of view, is nuts. It is insane. It is crazy. It should not be allowed to happen. Let us imagine where we would all be left if ticketmaster.ie went wallop in the morning. There are all these small festivals. I ask the Minister to examine this from a regulatory point of view. I commend all those who are supporting the festival to keep it going this year. I do not know where they will get the funding for it or how they will be supported, but if there is any way in which that can happen, it would be great. On the principle of tickets.ie and the regulatory process, we, as a Legislature, need to deal with it.”
“Finally, when it comes to the events side of the three As and the E, festivals are critical. The Minister is aware of the issue with tickets.ie . In fairness, he took a call from me last week about this. As regards the large-scale festival we have had in Thurles for the past number of years, Liberty Music Festival, now that tickets.ie has basically gone wallop, Councillor Jim Ryan in Thurles and others are having to find about €300,000 to support the festival to go ahead. Campsites and tickets are sold out yet, like a number of other festivals in this country, Liberty Music Festival is being massively affected by this. This is not the fault of the Government; it is a collective Oireachtas and regulatory fault.”
“It is incredibly important that he does so, and it would be a testament and a legacy for him if he were to do so. In the Nenagh and north Tipperary area, we are very proud of Shane MacGowan. There is a trail called Unravelling Shane MacGowan, which has been set up and supported by Siobhan, his sister, and Tipperary County Council, particularly Rosemary Joyce, with a huge number of people coming on the tour. There is the old family cottage, which we would love to get into some form of local authority or national ownership. I ask the Minister sometime he is passing down through the middle of Ireland - obviously, Nenagh is very central - to meet with the family there to discuss same. It would not involve a massive outlay but I wanted to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about that.”
“People come into Killaloe now that we have the new bridge, which I hold my hands up as being responsible for. Access is incredible. They come along the lake. Some of them have never heard of the greatest place on earth, Garrykennedy, which is unbelievably popular once people get there, or they go to Terryglass, Dromineer, Ballycommon, Ballina or wherever else. I use that as an example of how we, as a country, need to extend our tourism season and our tourism product generally. Tourism can be defined by three As and an E: accommodation, attractions, activities and events. I urge the Minister, from a capital and current point of view, to put together a programme for - he does not have to call it this - the hole in the doughnut in this country when it comes to tourism.”
“If, however, we consider the quality of the offering and, from a price comparison point of view, of what is also available for tourists down the spine of Ireland, there is a golden opportunity for us, particularly with Deputy Burke as Minister and, dare I say, with the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, beside him. From Cavan all the way down to the Cork-Kerry border, it as an oval shape that is the hole in the doughnut. That is where we need to concentrate capital and current investment. A number of years ago, when we had very little money, we launched the Lough Derg plan, a roadmap for experience development and destination marketing. Where I am from, along Lough Derg, which touches County Clare, north Tipperary and south Galway and the Shannon basin, is a hidden secret.”
“As the Minister will probably know, I used to work in Bord Fáilte and Fáilte Ireland until I made the crazy decision to get into politics. I am sure all Members wish I had not. I used to be a manager. I created the national tourism database. I am very proud of that because it distributes all the information to this day for everything we do in tourism. A colleague of mine, a fellow Tipperary man who was my manager, had a saying about tourism: "We cannot forget the hole in the doughnut." The issue is that a large number of people who come into this country go around the outskirts of Ireland.”
“It is appropriate that this Bill is named after her. I hope it will be put through in a very speedy manner. The Minister will get the full co-operation of the House. I expect and hope we can do this in a short time. I commend the Minister and his officials.”
“That is something else we might discuss. By and large, however, I and the Labour Party are one hundred per cent supportive of this. There are some issues that I have just raised and that I will tease out on Committee Stage. We will look at amendments. I would rather work with the Minister on amendments than table amendments myself. We could maybe discuss that and get to the right wording, but I wanted to put out those issues, which are the ones we should consider. In particular, I have a concern about the issue of the six-month period. Maybe there should be a way in which that is covered. Furthermore, the voice of the child, as part of this process, is the second most important issue, which we may need to look into again. I thank the Minister again. I thank David and the family of Valerie.”
“I do not have all the answers to this but it is certainly that six-month period. Are there any guardianship issues that will still remain with the person who will have the guardianship rights removed? I acknowledge we have to have a time period, but does the Minister see what I am getting at? I do not know if, from a legislative basis, we can even provide an answer because there has to be some sort of timeframe. This is something that cropped up when I was discussing this with some people. Maybe there could be a suspension of guardianship once a guardian is charged rather than convicted, and then there would be the overlap of the six months. Maybe something like that could be considered. That might be appropriate. Maybe child impact assessments should be completed ahead of an application to court as well.”
“There was also the issue discussed earlier of the consideration of explicitly excluding victims of domestic violence convicted of manslaughter when found to be acting in self-defence from having guardianship rights removed. That is quite a delicate area but that needs to be teased through. In relation to the timeframes, currently, the Bill's only time limit is a six-month deadline after conviction, during which Tusla can apply for restriction or removal of guardianship rights. This takes no account of the time it takes to charge and convict or the time for the application to be decided. This means the child would likely remain under the guardianship of their parents' killer for many months. Can we tease that out? Can there be a period when there is something else in place, or can we define even what that is?”
“There were some other recommendations, which the Minister might discuss. When we went through this, there was a specific kind of onus put in on the voice of the child. We might discuss that on Committee Stage as well. I might bring forward an amendment relating to how children can be better involved, how they can be better brought through and how there can be a mechanism to hear the voice of the child or children through the Bill. That was something we specifically went through when we discussed this previously. There was consideration also of a register of guardians to aid State bodies implementing the legislation. I do not know whether the Minister has considered that.”
“From a Labour Party perspective, we are watching out for that but we do feel that it is covered as part of the Bill. As Professor Louise Crowley argues, in the event of a challenge, the court will very likely have very strong grounds to say that it was in the best interests of the children to have someone else acting as their guardian or custodian. That is in relation to interaction with Article 41. That puts that to bed and I expect that we will be covered. Having gone through the pre-legislative recommendations, I am glad that a review mechanism is in place whereby there is an acquittal. We cannot foresee all circumstances as to what will happen in this country in years to come, so where there is an acquittal, we need to make sure the legislation is safeguarded for such scenarios. I am glad that is there.”
“Article 42A.2.1° states: In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child. This test, that a parent has failed in his or her duty towards the child concerned to such an extent that the safety of welfare of the child is likely to be prejudicially affected, is recited throughout the Bill. That is necessary just in case of constitutional challenges, which we know can happen quite frequently.”
“There has been some commentary from Tusla, probably not on the record, relating to resources and so on. It is not something that I believe we need to get overly concerned about because in truth, it must be the agency to deal with this. That is the way it should go. There are issues with the constitutionality of the legislation. My concern when this legislation was being drafted was whether there would be a constitutional test. Article 42A was inserted by the referendum on the rights of the child.”
“We have to acknowledge when legislation is necessary and we all agree that this legislation is necessary, and the Minister has brought it forward. We will tease it out. In the main, I support it. I will obviously be supporting it, but we will tease out a few things. The Minister and his Department are to be commended on bringing it forward in a pretty quick manner. I hope we will bring it through the Houses relatively quickly. I have a few issues. The Minister went through section 12D, which relates to the issue of being able to take away guardianship where there is a situation in relation to the second guardian as well. He outlined that comprehensively in his few words, but we might look to see how we can tighten it up on Committee Stage.”
“It probably does not happen often, but this is a matter that we, collectively, as a Legislature and a body politic, are glad to see happening. I welcome Valerie's family. They are very welcome. I commend Valerie's brother, David, to whom I listened on multiple media appearances over recent years and during pre-legislative scrutiny in committee. His testimony was compelling. His steadfast determination and resilience are completely admirable. I say "Well done" for the fight. He has ensured that legislation that is absolutely necessary is coming forward because of his advocacy and strength, and the way in which he has pushed for it. I also commend the Minister, which does not happen every day, as we know.”
“I am talking to it daily; I will be talking to it after I leave this Chamber. We, collectively here, need to put a plan in place because people are living longer. Dementia is growing because people are living longer as well. We need a plan. This gentleman paid his taxes, worked hard and raised a fantastic family and he deserves the dignity of being placed in a proper home to live out the rest of his days. Financially, this is bad for the taxpayer. He is taking up a bed in an acute ward at €2,000 a day. Can we please look together, collectively, to build for the future the proper facilities for people like this gentleman? Can we find solutions for people who are left in this unfortunate scenario, which is totally and utterly unacceptable?”
“I wish to briefly acknowledge the passing this morning of Liz Howard, a former president of the Camogie Association. She was a formidable - and I mean formidable - and passionate Tipperary woman. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a hanam dílis. I want to raise an issue in relation to elderly care. A man I have known all my life, who has dementia and other issues, has ended up in a midlands hospital. He has been there for months because I cannot find him a nursing home. This is going on around the country. We need a plan for people with dementia. Trust me when I say I know what I am talking about here because I deal with it every day in my own life. We need a plan. It is embarrassing. I am embarrassed that I cannot help this man. The HSE is embarrassed. It cannot find a place for him.”
“This is a rarity, but I thank the Minister. It is not very often that, in effect, a Minister accepts an amendment from the Opposition, particularly on a Bill that is quite technical. I acknowledge that. Even though this is technically not my amendment, it reflects the spirit of the amendment I tabled. I acknowledge the fact that it is the Labour Party's amendment and my amendment. I do accept what the Minister is saying in relation to how he has constructed a revision of what I put forward and broadened it out to go past the issue of national or ethnic origins and focus on the broader human rights issue. I thank him sincerely for accepting the spirit of the original amendment. It was put forward for the right reason, namely to ensure that people will be protected no matter where they come from or their background.”
“I will not press the amendment. I accept the Minister's response. This is something that may need to be narrowed down and looked at. Something that is inadvertent would, by and large, be acceptable, but something that is deliberate would not. This may be a matter that we can return to at a later stage. On the basis of the Minister’s reply, I will not press the amendment.”
“The purpose of this amendment to make it an offence without lawful authority or reasonable excuse knowingly to contravene section 43C(1), which states: "A member of Garda personnel shall not carry out biometric analysis other than in accordance with this Part and any applicable code of practice." The last time we spoke on this, the Minister said he would look at it and consider it. I await his response.”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(ab) contravenes section 43C(1);”. The Bill is drafted on the basis that what is not permitted remains prohibited. Checking a person's image against a database of images seems to remain prohibited. It seems the only way to emphasise this is to make it an offence. The Bill already criminalises falsifying, concealing or destroying information obtained by biometric analysis. It does not, however, state that a contravention of the Bill itself is an offence.”
“I urge the Minister to deal with this issue because it is life-changing for the families and children involved and it is completely inconsistent. There is also inconsistency in how Tusla implements recommendations. Ultimately, we need to change the in camera rule and permit the attendance of journalists. We need fully anonymity for families and we need judges to have discretion in respect of restrained reporting. We also need complete regulation of experts and training for members of An Garda Síochána.”
“We need to ensure that there is controlled transparency, with strong anonymity safeguards, rather than blanket secrecy. The impact on families and children has been huge. There has been emotional harm which has traumatised and retraumatised them. As legislators we finally need to deal with this in 2026. I have been saying this for some time. One of the most key points is that we need to deal with the issue of court-appointed experts. Without a shadow of a doubt, this is an area that needs a complete overhaul as regards minimum standards, minimum requirements and qualifications. In many cases judges just take the opinions of experts as factual and are guided by them. These people are being paid. It is an industry. The standards are not there. It is too defining a role to leave it in such a laissez-faire way. It is unacceptable.”
“The review that reported in 2025 demonstrated what parents and guardians feel as regards being confused, isolated, silenced and completely confused as to what they can and cannot discuss. It is glaringly obvious that this has to be dealt with. We need clear information, clear knowledge and clear guidelines on how we deal with family court issues. I do believe the Minister is committed to it but few of the recommendations have been implemented. However, the report ultimately keeps the in camera rule, which creates a very confusing outcome. While we can agree with many of the recommendations, it still comes down in favour of that. This cannot continue in the real world. The world has changed from where we are in terms of the legislation that was brought in in relation to this, whereby information now comes out in a different way.”
“First, I compliment Deputy Gogarty and his colleagues for bringing this forward. This is an extremely important topic. To a degree, we probably need to get to a political consensus on it. I believe that the Minister can travel this journey with us. He is probably committed to a certain amount of reform in this area. I read what he said last year and prior to that in relation to this. I hope his goodwill towards it is very real. I accept that it is a tricky area and it will take some time but I believe and hope that he will be the Minister to deal with this. Like others, I also compliment "RTÉ Investigates" on its programme. It certainly provided a level of knowledge to people and did it in a very real way.”
“Instead, there should be a veterinary practitioner in charge and in ownership of all of these practices. I understand that every political entity in this House supports this Bill. It is coming back before the agriculture committee. Will the Taoiseach ensure its quick progressions through these Houses so we can protect veterinary services in the country?”
“Deputy Robert O'Donoghue and I had a meeting with vets over the past period of time with a view to progressing the Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Bill, which was actually brought in by former Fianna Fáil Deputy, Jackie Cahill, and my former constituency colleague. We will have a crisis in veterinary services across Ireland if we do not do something because veterinary practices are being bought up by corporate entities. This is happening continuously. As a result, we are having loss of service, restricted times for services and prices dramatically increasing and we will have animal welfare issues. This is an urban issue as well as a rural issue. It will be across the board. In Britain, they are trying to reverse allowing corporate entities to have veterinary practices.”
“My concerns there would lead me to want to know when this will be brought in and to get an assurance about the manner in which this data will be retained, the duration of its retention and how it will be used. That should obviously be done to the standard that is required under national legislation and legislation at a European level to maintain those standards.”
“If he were to have any information on that, it would be interesting. Second, obviously, we need to be very careful as regards the use of data here because this data will identify people and so on. We need to be very careful to make sure the standards that are maintained here meet with our national standards and EU standards, given the fact that we are dealing with a third country, outside the EU, in the United Kingdom. As I have raised here in the Dáil and in committees on numerous occasions, I am not convinced that An Garda Síochána has been in any way exemplary when it comes to the retention of data, whether the issue has related to DNA, fingerprints or many other areas.”
“I welcome this. As regards An Garda Síochána doing its policing duty, obviously, it will be very welcome. As regards the whole initiative of ANPR and number-plate recognition and the sharing of data, hopefully this will help, obviously, given the fact that we have a Border on this island. There is also the amount of traffic coming from Britain into Ireland and vice versa . It will particularly help in relation to serious crime. As we know, it is trans-border. On both islands, this will create a co-operation that is desperately needed. From a policing point of view, I have read the Minister's statement as regards the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, bringing in the statutory instrument. Could the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, provide the timelines for when this will actually take effect?”
“As to where the legal parameters are as regards legal advice and legal counsel, I do not know why it was continued with and why we even bother with legal counsel. Why do we have this makey-uppy thing? We all know how to define legal advice but legal counsel is not defined in a way that it understandable. It is a makey-uppy term and we know the reasons for that but it is not acceptable. It will ensure there are huge legal challenges across the many stages for people who are seeking protection and it will make a lot of money for a lot of people in the Minister's former profession.”