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 5 of 11.
“Trying to go through everything that has been ruled out of order and everything that has been grouped together is like trying to do a mathematical equation. Some of the groupings do not make much sense. I do not blame those who were putting these lists together in the Bills Office because they were trying their best at the last minute, frankly. This is becoming a bit of a habit from the Minister's Department in relation to lots of different things. I do not know what is going on as regards competency, or whether it is direction from the Minister or what the hell is going on, but this is no way to do legislation. To be frank, it is no way for a Department to be run or for officials to be directed. It is not the first time I have had to say this. As legislators, we need to do things properly. Otherwise, mistakes will be made.”
“If my colleague calls a vote on section 1, we will definitely support it. I think I am the longest serving Member in the Chamber at the moment, and it is on that basis that I say this is not the way to do legislation. That is no criticism of the officials who are here, who get directions on the basis of the timelines given to them by the Ministers. This is crazy stuff, as everyone has said. That we are going to debate this for eight hours non-stop is not good for legislation. We will be doing the same next week by all accounts, if not longer. There will probably be guillotines used, which obviously we will oppose. This is such important legislation. This should be put through the wringer of normal committee processing so we can go into it in detail.”
“This Bill will ensure workers have better lives, that many of the social issues, challenges and costs they face and the environmental issues we all face are dealt with and helped because this is the right thing to do. We talk a lot about workers and productivity but workers are far more productive when there is balance in their lives. As politicians, we should know this. We should know this as workers who come here every week. Why can we not practice what we believe in? This legislation will ensure better productivity. It will also ensure workers can live across this country and make a contribution, that they can have balanced working lives in Nenagh, Roscrea, Thurles and many other regional towns across Ireland.”
“It will enable them to be around their elderly parents, to spend more time at home and in their community, to go to the gym and not to spend three to six hours in their car. What this Bill does is create something the Government should be very interested in, namely, better spatial and regional planning by ensuring people can live in rural towns and regional areas. That is something this Government does not progress enough. This legislation is all about work-life balance. We work to live but we do not live to work. This Bill distinguishes my party, the Labour Party, from every other party in this House. This is what the Labour Party is all about. It is the party of workers, the party that ensures workers come first. Workers should come first but when it comes to this Government, they do not.”
“Today in Nenagh, I had the privilege of announcing 307 new homes being built, on top of over 300 announced previously by Whitebox and Quantum homes. A total of more than 600 houses will be built. Why is that so important? Nenagh is effectively in the centre of the country and is one of the best towns in Ireland. Many of the people who are going into these homes are local people or people who desire to live there but who want to work from home or partially work from home through blended working. Nenagh is a commutable distance to Dublin, Shannon, Limerick or Galway one or two days a week but it is certainly not commutable five days a week. This Bill ensures those workers will have the opportunity to live among their community, to access all of the services they need, including childcare and schools, and to live among their families.”
“Unfortunately, that says an awful lot about him as a Minister. He was vehemently opposed to this previously, but now, despite the Supreme Court's decision in 2022, he is bringing it in. That is an issue for me when it comes to his conviction as Minister. If that is going to be the mark of his Ministry, then it gives rise to concerns in respect of a number of matters beyond this Bill.”
“A Minister without conviction holding that portfolio is deeply worrying and troubling. The Minister has stated on the record of this House that he is of a completely different view. The explanation for continuing with and justifying this is even more bizarre, particularly when we consider that the justice committee unanimously went against it and that the premise set out in the Department of justice's report on which the abolition is founded was swept away by Supreme Court's decision in the Higgins case in 2022. I do not know why the Minister is under so much pressure in his Department or within Government to continue going down this road. This is the last opportunity for him to change what is involved here. This is a step in the wrong direction. The Minister is not doing or is not pushing for the right thing.”
“Getting rid of the process by which these trials are done by jury has no basis really from what the concern was. We are stripping the litigant of the right to choose the mode of trial by which the facts of the action are to be decided and also striking down the fundamental principle at the heart of our legal system by removing the jury. This requirement for fairness in law and the use of juries is as old as justice itself but for some reason, despite the Minister's own personal views not that long ago, his current views are completely contradictory. The Minister calls it compromise. I would prefer it if the Minister had conviction and stood by what he actually believes in. There is a deeper concern as to his conviction and why he does not stand by what he believes in, particularly as he is the Minister for justice.”
“We will not be opposing any of the Minister's amendments as they are broadly technical but I have to say, it is a huge pity he does not practice what he preaches in relation to this Bill. He was on the total opposite of this debate when he was sitting in a different part of this Chamber - with Government but against it. Once the Minister got the seal of office, he changed tack totally and that is a fact. We can read the record. A paper that is read a lot more in the Minister's constituency than in mine is The Irish Times . The former head of the civil juries division of the High Court, the former judge, Mr. Justice Bernard Barton, has written in the paper today. I am sure the Minister has read it or it has been brought to his attention.”
“It is about what is right and what can be done in a timely fashion. We must bring in legislation to deal with this matter. I am absolutely convinced of that, having dealt with the issue intimately for months. We cannot allow what is going on to keep infecting the citizens, children and adults, who are badly affected by it. We need to legislate to ensure the companies are accountable to us and we do not have to continue to chase them.”
“We are not doing the latter when it comes to this issue unless we bring in legislation to address it. As other committee members in attendance here know, Meta and TikTok refused point-blank to tell us the number of accounts registered to people aged under 16. However, this goes beyond the whole debate on whether we should ban social media for under-16s. How can we trust these companies when they will not even give us basic information like that? How can we ensure they are held accountable rather than our having to chase them? We cannot wait until the European Union catches up, which I do not believe it will do. Ireland will assume the European Presidency later this year. I accept the bona fides of the Minister and the Government on this matter. This is not an Opposition versus Government issue.”
“I have used the example of the process whereby pharmaceutical drugs are brought into the State to help people when they are ill. The drugs are analysed and go through a regulatory process overseen by the Health Products Regulatory Authority. We would not allow a drug into this country that would deliberately harm people or minimise the harm to them. We would not allow that scenario. Why are we allowing it in this instance? Is it because the whole virus of social media has gone so far and is so controlling? Is it because the companies are based here and we are dependent on their taxes? What is more important? Our duty as TDs in this House is to do two things: first, uphold the Constitution; and, second, legislate for what is right to protect our people.”
“We need to change the law in order that these companies are criminally liable where they allow their e-commerce platform to be used to create and-or distribute AI- or computer-generated images. We also need to deal with platforms like WhatsApp in respect of the sharing of these images. We must ensure we protect our children and all our citizens. It is absolutely incumbent on us to do so. When we challenged representatives of TikTok who appeared before the committee about what was going on, the response is one that will live with me forever. The representative said the company's goal is "minimising harm". The goal is not to prevent harm but to minimise it. As the father of a 15-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy, that scared me. These companies should not be minimising harm but 100% preventing or stopping it.”
“At the media committee, of which I am Cathaoirleach, we heard Gráinne Seoige's story. It was horrendous. In that situation, people have to go to An Garda Síochána and identify the person distributing these vile images. Then gardaí have to go to the person and try to get his or her phone. If people have to go to court for a court order, the judge, having weighed up the question in terms of proportionality, may decide the phone cannot be given over in view of everything else that is on it. All of this happens, and the process goes on endlessly. I have seen the correspondence to and from the big-tech company in the case I mentioned. I know what happened with An Garda Síochána and that it was not the fault of its members.”
“Big-tech e-commerce companies could not care less about fines. They build them into their business planning. The only thing that will work is making them criminally liable where what we are discussing happens. It is the only thing that will work. I would love to see the EU dealing with this issue quickly but I do not believe it possible that it will do so. We cannot wait for it act. The European Commission has confirmed that there is no reason whatsoever that Ireland cannot act to deal with this issue. I did not think that needed to be confirmed but it has been. The legislation, in whatever form it takes, must deal with AI- and computer-generated images and ensure that the law is inverted such that these companies have to adhere to Irish law rather than us having to chase them.”
“I propose to share time with Deputy Lawlor. This Bill is very similar to, if not a mirror copy of, the Bill I published. It even has the same name, but we will not worry about that. The most important thing is that legislation is brought in one way or the other. I could not care less whether it is brought forward by my party, Sinn Féin or the Government. The most important element of the Bill is its timing. We do not have time to wait. The Labour Party has the longest track record on this issue. My colleague and former Deputy Brendan Howlin was the instigator of Coco's Law, which, I acknowledge, was taken on and brought in by the Government. We identified a loophole in the legislation some time ago in that AI-generated images are not covered. As well as addressing that, we must invert responsibility for what is happening.”
“Earlier I spoke with Jacinta Graham, who is the mother of Stephen Loughnane who is the subject of the RTÉ "Prime Time Investigates" programme tonight. He had a brain injury following a car accident and has been in continuous seclusion in Limerick Prison since 2021, then in the Central Mental Hospital and then in Portrane because there is no residential place for him. He is in uninterrupted 24-hour seclusion all of the time.”
“This is all about money and power. Some jurisdiction in this world has to stand up and shout "Stop". This country, where many of these companies are based, should be the jurisdiction to do so. The initiation of that will be if we collectively as a legislature implement this Bill. I hope the Government will support it in the coming weeks. We do not have time to wait.”
“I hope the Government will - I do not mind - take it on, change it or do whatever but keep the ethos of it and by doing so act speedily to deal with this issue. We have the European Presidency coming up and the Taoiseach has spoken about changes he would like to see in that time. We cannot even wait until then. We have to deal with this issue now. There is a loophole that needs to be addressed. At the Oireachtas committee meeting earlier, both Meta and TikTok refused to tell us how many accounts they had for children under 16. Let that sink in. They needed to get permission from on high to find out if they could share that information in a jurisdiction. This is the type of company we are dealing with. If we believe we can trust them within the regulatory framework that currently exists, we are so bloody naive; we cannot.”
“I have heard, and always believe, that we can look towards Europe when everybody there is aligned in respect of bringing in legislation to deal with such issues. Unfortunately, we cannot wait for Europe in this case because it will take too long. Many of the children, and indeed adults, across this country will be affected if we wait. The Bill clarifies what is an abuse image to include AI-generated images, but also ensures that the companies involved are prosecutable for the facilitation of such abuse and for the sharing of such abuse. No one should lie in fear that their image or identity can be abused or weaponised. The primary responsibility of those of us in the Chamber and in the Oireachtas is to protect our citizens. This Bill protects everyone's digital safety on this issue.”
“This Bill follows on from Coco's Law. It deals with what we believe are loopholes in the law when it comes to the sharing of sexual and intimate images, whether they are AI-generated or real. It ensures that the definition of "image" includes images that are generated by AI or computer-generated images. Most importantly, the Bill sets a criminal act for the generation and sharing of such images by those who facilitate it, that is, the e-commerce companies. Those companies are publishers and not just platforms. They hide behind the word "platform". They are e-commerce companies that are worth billions or zillions of dollars. They are trading on people's vulnerability. They are getting away with an incredible amount of harassment and abuse that is affecting the lives of millions of people.”
“I move: That leave be granted to introduce Bill entitled an Act to amend the law relating to the recording, distribution or publication of intimate images so as to extend its provisions to images that are generated or modified by computer-graphics; for that purpose to amend the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020; and to provide for related matters. This Bill is critically important. I have just come from chairing an Oireachtas media committee meeting that heard from representatives of TikTok, Google and Meta. X refused to come in, which says its own thing. That was a disgraceful decision. After that meeting, I can assure everybody in this House that this Bill is needed more than ever. The Bill is a huge enhancement of Coco's Law, which was inspired by the Labour Party and our former colleague, Brendan Howlin.”
“We will get through the meat of the Bill on Committee Stage because so much is missing. The facts are that the Government is deliberately putting out spurious messages on migration and what is going on here is a bloody disgrace. The people who have come into this country from other countries and who work here are welcome. That is the message the Government should be sending out, rather than leaving us to do it.”
“We need them in care, tourism, hospitality, agriculture and, dare I say it, in very high-end jobs as well. We are failing to send that message. We need proportionality as regards what we are doing in this country when it comes to migration. I say this clearly to the Minister and everybody else in government and in Sinn Féin: if they do not do it, we will do it. Somebody has to present a positive message on inward migration. Those in government are responsible but they are bloody well not doing it. In fact, at times they are scaring people. To mix up the asylum process with inward migration is a disgrace. The numbers are tiny by comparison with what we need to keep our country progressing economically and socially.”
“For the first time in my career, I have had migrants who are working in this country come to my office saying they are afraid. I recently heard the story of a migrant, not in my constituency, who is working in care. When they were out one day, they got horrendous abuse from particular individuals in the area where they live. Later on, around Christmas time, while they were working through their work in care looking after elderly people, amazingly, one of the people who gave the abuse was in visiting a member of their family. Who was looking after the member of that family? It was the same person they gave the abuse to. Let us call a spade a spade here. We need all these workers and we need more because, without them, this country would stop.”
“I believe in a rules-based system. I also believe that if people fail those rules, they cannot stay in this country. I have no issue with deportation or any of that. However, I do have an issue with balance. In tandem with what the Minister is doing and in tandem with the obvious need to introduce a Bill of some scale like this, there also needs to be a public awareness campaign on the positivity of necessary inward migration. That does not happen. What happens is that the Minister for justice, the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach, Sinn Féin Members, certain Independent Members who are in government and others stand up and say, "Oh yeah, we have workers and they should be respected." They then spend the rest of the time going on about the issues, which at times are frightening and very upsetting for many people who come into this country.”
“When we discussed this topic previously, I said that the issue of where international applicants are refused asylum in other EU countries needs to be looked at as regards how that can be utilised in this country. The Minister has not addressed that, but I expect he will do so in the future because I believe it is a genuine issue and something that could be quite helpful in reality. Furthermore, how we use language in this area is very important. I am very concerned that the language used, not alone by those in government, in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and, dare I say it, some Independents, but also by Sinn Féin at times, where they are all trying to ride both horses, is completely hypocritical, unacceptable and at times actually publicly dangerous. It needs to stop. As far as I am concerned, the Minister can do better.”
“Moving on to the issue of family reunification, to be straight about it, not alone do we feel this is unfair and ill judged, it is downright cruel because it is not three years. Effectively, when everything is added up, it is five years. It is disproportionate and unfair, particularly when it comes to genuine cases. Of all the countries that should know what we are dealing with here, we should know what we are talking about. It is not appropriate that the Minister is pursuing this without the definition of how he is going to do it. As far as the Labour Party is concerned, instigating a three-year waiting period is unacceptable and cruel. It creates a different message from what we believe this country should be putting out in relation to how we deal sensitively with these issues.”
“The chief inspector's powers appear mostly regulatory rather than investigative with unclear authority to initiate investigations of many potential breaches, whatever they may be, including assault, sexual assault and various other breaches. In relation to a number of other areas, including the detention and restriction of movement, proper procedures must apply with procedural safeguards. We cannot have a situation where it is de facto detention. There must absolutely be a prohibition on the detention of children, which is essential. The detention of adults should only be a measure of last resort. The word "proportionate" needs to come into play here. It is not very clear how that will be achieved.”
“Regarding gaps in age assessment, the Bill lacks clarity on who will do this work and what experience and qualifications they will have. This really needs to be dealt with. There is no detail on what constitutes a suitable medical means of assessing age. When it comes to the issue of children, this is absolutely essential. This is a serious gap in age assessment safeguards. There are also concerns over the independent monitoring mechanism, which is obviously essential for the protection of the rights of everyone in the system. Serious concerns remain about the effectiveness of the independent monitoring system as set out in the EU's fundamental rights agency.”
“That will be a big problem for the Minister and he needs to get it right. At this point the jury is out on it. There is a lack of clarity on this and a big question over whether counselling can be provided by the legal profession under existing professional and ethical rules, and whether IP applicants will be denied customised individual advice as they are entitled to rather than just generic stuff. It is a fairly hefty concern. I am sure the Minister has read recommendations 82 to 85 from our pre-legislative scrutiny. If I were him, I would take some advice regarding the explicit provision on guaranteed access to free legal assistance. The issue in relation to legal counselling tied us up in knots. We really need to see where the Minister plans on going on that.”
“What is proposed creates serious uncertainty about applicants’ entitlements to legal advice at all stages of the process. I am very concerned that this is an area in respect of which there will be a huge level of kick-back and a large number of test cases. Dare I say, many people in the Minister’s former profession will be licking their lips and seeing dollar signs. I might as well say it to the Minister inside here - at least I have the guts to say it to him - they are all licking their lips asking if this will be a big payday and if the Minister is the Manchurian candidate for the legal professional in the Department of justice. I say that as a joke but there is serious concern as to whether he will get this through and it will be sound, and that there will not be a whole range of test cases where so much will be tied up.”
“The Bill deals with the way the Minister can decide as to what information can be given to an applicant, if other organisations or NGOs can give out information, if applicants can appeal directly, if the chief inspector can be removed in the interests of the Government and the funding of the inspectorate. When we spoke at the committee, the issue relating to the chief inspector gave rise to a range of issues regarding the independence of the inspectorate from the Government. The Bill does not define what is meant by legal counselling. We had a lot of discussion on this at the committee and about who will provide it. Huge numbers of members of the legal profession are discussing this matter. It is something which really needs to be nailed down. Fewer than five months remain before the pact is due to be implemented.”
“The Minister has made serious statements on the issue of family unification and the three-year rule. We know this is coming but we do not know what will be involved. We need more information on that. The conditions around receptions and how they will be managed need to be dealt with. Issues relating to a designated authority are not included. Information on age assessments, and how they will be handled and regulated, and how the representative role will be regulated has not been published. The Bill is very broad when it comes to the powers being given to the Minister. These powers are fairly overarching.”
“I appreciate that there are amendments and legislation that need to be brought in, but there is so much that is not fundamentally not tied down in this Bill. We just do not know whether the provisions relating to many areas are going to be legally sound. I do not know if the Minister knows they will be legally sound. I am genuine in saying that. I admit that this is a very tricky area, but there is a time conditionality involved. While we are trying to work with the Minister, it is genuinely difficult to do so when we are shooting in the dark, which is what we are doing here. There are a number of omissions when it comes to the Bill. Legal counselling is not mentioned or defined. My colleague Deputy Ahern will be speaking on this matter. He and I are sharing time.”
“There are issues around age assessments. Safeguarding is a huge area. There is also the issue of vulnerability assessment in the context of the fact that there will only be preliminary analysis done rather than an ongoing process, particularly as some things not be caught or discovered in the initial process. There are issues in relation to the independence of the appeals body. The Government is very unclear about the scope of the chief inspectorate and whether oral appeals will be allowed. There are also issues with the powers the Minister will be granted. There seems to be a pattern within the Department regarding a lot of the legislation and work it is bringing through. Much of this is not fully finished.”
“We are talking in a bit of a vacuum here because any amendments the Minister has spoken about bringing forward, either in the media or here, have not actually been brought forward. As the previous speaker indicated, we should discuss any amendments in full on Committee Stage. I also ask that the Minister not guillotine the Bill. As he stated, it is such an important and comprehensive Bill. On foot of that, it should not be guillotined in any shape or form. There are a lot of concerns about the Bill because so many areas require scrutiny. The detention of unaccompanied children is a major issue. The creation of a disproportionate and overarching power for the Minister is something I will speak about in a moment. The information that will be provided to an applicant as part of this process and what it is in totality does not seem clear.”
“We need a serious discussion in here about Garda leadership, the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, after what happened in Limerick yesterday, where a retired superintendent and four gardaí were found innocent on 39 charges. That took seven years. How much did this bloody well cost the taxpayer, and it is not finished yet? It is not acceptable. We need a debate on this. The Garda Representative Association, GRA, has called it a witch hunt.”
“They are prominent campaigners on behalf of the LGBT community who have put in massive numbers of hours, days, months and years campaigning for so many people to get those convictions from 1993 spent and disregarded. This is very important legislation for them and for many others. I acknowledge and thank them for their campaigning over the past number of years.”
“I wanted to raise that because, if necessary, we will bring it forward and, if necessary, we will do so in this Bill. Before I let my colleague in, it is very important that I acknowledge the fact that the Minister will bring in through this Bill a disregard of historical convictions in relation to consensual same-sex activity pre 1993. I look forward to it; this is very much welcome. My colleague beside me, Deputy Nash, has been an advocate and has worked on this for well over a decade. In fact, he raised this so often in this Chamber and outside. He is to be commended hugely on it. The Minister might acknowledge campaigners Kieran Rose, my good friend Karl Hayden and Brian Sheehan, who are in the Gallery above us today along with Eddie McGuinness.”
“It is quite obvious from talking to her and many others that the idea that An Garda Síochána can go around looking for a whole range of different phones is not sustainable. The Garda asks people for their phones, they say "No", that they are not giving the phone, and then the Garda has to get a court order to be able to get the phone. That is not sustainable. We have to deal with this at the stage of the actual publisher, whether that is X, Meta, TikTok, Google or hundreds of others. We must deal with it at that stage, where it is a criminal offence to aid and facilitate the distribution of such images. This issue will be coming in front of the Minister at Cabinet. I would hope that we can deal with this very quickly. This may be the vehicle by which we can do so.”
“This may be the avenue on Committee Stage - I do not really care whether it is the Labour Party or the Minister, if he can improve it - where we can bring in changes to ensure that we deal with this issue in a prompt and timely way. We believe there is a lacuna, and we have taken a lot of advice on the issue of where AI-generated or computer-generated images are being developed and then shared by e-commerce publishers. I do not call them platforms. They are publishers, the same as the Irish Independent , the Irish Examiner , The Times or anything else. They are publishers, and we have to have this scenario now whereby it is an offence for those who behave in such a way and who do this. Gráinne Seoige appeared before the Joint Committee on Arts, Media, Communications, Culture and Sport yesterday.”
“Many people were probably not fully aware of the issues in relation to outdoor seating on public land. I am aware of them, and that needs to be closed off. That is to be welcomed. We need to have a larger discussion in relation to the definitions behind how we are going to deal with face coverings. In principle, I agree with the Minister, but we need to look at the conditioning around how we are going to deal with that. I also want to raise something I raised with the Minister earlier. Today, I published a Bill providing for an update to Coco's Law. I asked the Tánaiste that this issue be dealt with in the coming weeks to deal with the obvious issues in relation to what is happening with online e-commerce companies and online publishers and the fact there is a lacuna in the law. The reason I am raising it here is simple.”
“This is something that also crops up quite a number of times. I very much welcome it. We could have looked at other areas in relation to bail, and we may come back with amendments on that as well. Furthermore, the issues relating to court hearings and the electronic sharing of documents are something that should have been addressed years ago. I have actually flagged this myself. I have spoken in this Chamber about it. I have spoken to so many gardaí and people who work in the justice system about this. It is actually ridiculous. It is beyond time that was done. We need further information regarding DNA analysis techniques and what the Minister is proposing in relation to missing persons. In principle, however, I believe we will be supportive.”
“It is also important that this is being prescribed in the Bill in two different ways to avoid any form of doubt, which is the way it should be done. The Minister has a range of other measures he is bringing forward as amendments. Before I go through those, in relation to the Bail Act, I am delighted the Minister is putting provisions in the section in relation to coercive control and also with regard to forced marriages. Both are very important areas. It is quite obvious that coercive control is becoming more of an issue. It lacked a definition, so it is very welcome that it has now been defined. It will be a substantive issue that can be used now in relation to the decisions for bail. Forced marriage, unfortunately, is also on the increase as our country changes and as different nationalities come in and everything else.”
“I am delighted to see that the Minister has finally come forward with legislation in relation to sex for rent. I commend him. I hope he respects the fact that the Labour Party and, indeed, my party colleague Senator Harmon brought forward a Bill on this well over six months ago. In fairness, the Minister met with her, and much of what she put forward is in this Bill. It is beyond time this was done. The Bill amends the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 and creates two new offences. From our perspective, this is very accurate. The first offence is where a person is offering a person accommodation in return for sexual activity in lieu of payment. The second is an offence of advertising or causing to be advertised an offer of accommodation in return for sexual activity in lieu of payment. This is beyond required.”
“I think it is a big struggle for his backbenchers and for his colleagues as well. This is a topic we, as a Legislature, have to deal with, and deal with sensitively and right. I believe the Minister will have to go with the committee's decisions in relation to this because I am not sure that what he is proposing will be sustainable in law. It is definitely the trickiest part of this Bill. I urge the Minister to maybe listen again to all the groups we have met, such as the National Women's Council, One in Four and many more, in relation to this because he needs to reconsider this whole section and how he is going to go about it. I look forward to the Minister's amendments on Committee Stage, but I certainly do not believe this is going to be feasible in the way in which he is prescribing.”
“I understand that this is very tricky constitutionally. I understand it is very tricky from a legislative point of view. I know the Minister is bringing in amendments, and I do not doubt his commitment. However, I am not sure he can actually narrow this down such that when it goes through the courts and through the actual cases of the future, he can separate it out and this would be allowed only in very specific cases, as he said, in relation to people getting a fair trial. I doubt it. There will be legal challenges left, right and centre. I believe there will be a precedent set then and it will fall. I need the Minister to think very carefully on this because I believe that when it comes to Committee Stage and Report Stage, this is, frankly, borderline impossible and he will have to go with the committee's recommendations.”
“They do not see how they can continue if there is not a complete relook at the way in which they are working. In tallying with this change, absolutely, the Minister is going to have to in some way relook at the Probation Service in a very supportive way, particularly in relation to bringing in more personnel to work there. The issue of counselling records in sexual offences trials is going to be very difficult for the Minister. We believe, and our committee believes, very strongly that this issue has to be dealt with in such a way that this is not going to happen any more. I have met individuals who will not go for counselling. When that is something that comes out as a result of where we are in this country and the case law that has been there, that is deeply worrying. I believe the Minister's bona fides here are probably correct.”
“It needs to be looked at again and we will certainly do so on Committee Stage. On the changes the Minister is making to community service orders, I very much welcome these. This is something that would help the issues we have in our prisons. It is good practice and it is to be welcomed. The threshold of 24 months and the conditioning of how people will qualify for that really needs to be teased out but it is good practice. The issue I have here is how we are managing the Probation Service. If the Minister has met with it recently, the Probation Service will tell him to his face that it is so stretched. It simply does not have the resources and it does not have the personnel. I know a number of people who work in the service, and they are absolutely stretched as far as they can go.”