Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 38.
“In the UK and the US, in the move to proscribe, an ever-larger number of organisations are being defined as terrorist organisations. A swathe of those who wish for action in areas like Palestine, human rights or climate are being labelled as terrorist organisations. When we are considering whether it is a terrorist activity, how are we going to say that we do not believe it would be an offence in the State here? Will we be saying it is because it says the act is the same? If the act is the same but the entity doing it is one we might not have identified as a terrorist organisation, where does that come in? It is not clear to me, but as I read the law, it looks to me that the test is the act, not the nature of the organisation.”
“We are putting in place the same toolbox with the same sets of offences, if we are taking that common set of offences. Will it be the case that we will have a law in another country that is very similar to the law here but who we consider to be proscribed or terrorist organisations may differ from country to country? We do not have such a proscription list in the same way others may have. Will we take the United States definition of terrorist organisations, and when we consider whether people should be prosecuted in Ireland, because of the fact we have a similar offence in our law as they have in their law, are we just going to be comparing action with action or will we be comparing action with action in terms of who it is?”
“The contexts are slightly different. Another piece I am concerned about is that provision in regard to an act committed outside the State which, if committed in the State, would constitute an offence. I will let the Minister have the advice on this one and then I am going to come to it. In this scenario, where an act is committed outside the State that, if committed in the State, would constitute an offence, the emphasis is on the action, taking into account the wide range of actions, but if you had an action, for example, criminal damage of a piece of property, in support of a terrorist cause, whose definition of "cause" is it? Ireland is putting in place the same toolbox, or a very similar toolbox, to what we are seeing being applied in a very authoritarian way in the UK or what we see being deployed in Germany.”
“Is that person celebrating? Does that person now come under the criminal offences Act as well? Under paragraph (b), the definition of terrorist activity includes “an act committed ... outside the State that, if committed in the State, would constitute an offence specified in Part 2 of Schedule 2”. What happens if those actions - we are coming to my set of amendments now - committed outside the State happened in an occupied territory? If these actions were committed in the State they would be criminal offences, but what happens if they were committed in an occupied territory? If someone in an occupied portion of Ukraine taking action against the Russian military were to take a similar action here in our State, it would be an offence, but as it is taking place in an occupied territory, is it still an offence?”
“The Bill, as drafted, also allows for the prosecution for terrorist-linked activity of people who praise the actions of protesters engaged in direct action in or outside the State, which may include damage to property or other offences. This includes those who are damaging weapons facilities to interrupt the supply of murderous technologies that are directly facilitating a genocide. We have heard about the Genocide Convention, which the Minister of State mentioned, and the obligation of states not to provide arms. We have heard calls at the United Nations for arms embargoes in respect of the provision of weapons for genocide. Where is the threshold where somebody says, “I am glad they were not able to drop those bombs” or “I am glad they stopped those weapons systems from delivering the bombs they were due to drop on Gaza”?”
“Simply by labelling it in this way for these actions, which may well be correctly prosecuted as criminal damage, there is a levelling up where someone doing criminal damage is to be treated with much less severity than somebody who may have a belief attached to that, which happens to fall under the rubric of this Government or any other state. We will come back to this point because the Bill is setting us up to enforce what other states might consider to be an offence. Will it include people who graffiti a building? If somebody puts graffiti on a building and says they believe a state should or should not do something, will that not just be criminal damage but a terrorist offence? What is the threshold where property damage is going to become a terrorist offence? That is a very serious question in terms of how it will pan out.”
“However, by labelling it as a terrorist offence, it is moved to a much more serious and intimidatory legal consequence for those engaged in it, and it also cuts off the sources of support. If somebody is engaging in the activity and then they say, “I do not like your climate policies” or “I do not want arms used in this way”, they are not just getting done for criminal damage. They are now getting done for terrorism because there is a cause attached to it even if the cause, in some cases, such as climate and preventing genocide, is not a cause that is delivering terror. In fact, it is the opposite. It is a cause that is seeking to give hope and move us back towards a world in which people are not living in terror, either in terms of illegal military action or unliveable climate disaster.”
“There are judges in the United Kingdom who are looking at 80-year-olds in wheelchairs, holding a piece of paper with the words “I am against genocide”, and saying they believe that person is a threat. It is a ludicrous situation, but it is deeply consequential. As we are going to discuss with some of the later amendments, there is a significant issue about what is included in the definition of terrorist activity. In other jurisdictions, there is a shift whereby convictions that would normally be treated as criminal property damage are now being considered and prosecuted as terrorist offences. It may be right that something normally treated as criminal property damage is prosecuted and so forth.”
“The Minister of State said on Committee Stage: It must be shown that he or she possessed the requisite intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity when he or she distributed, published or had caused to be distributed or published a message. The message itself must have glorified, including by praise or celebration, a terrorist activity. She also said, "The publication of the message must give rise to a reasonable apprehension that someone might, as a result of such a publication, commit a terrorist act". That sounds like a good safeguard but that is the same kind of safeguards the UK has. That is an entirely subjective test in terms of the reasonable apprehension.”
“When they proscribed Palestine Action, there was a 2,608% increase in the arrests, with almost 2,000 people arrested. Of those arrested, 80% were women. A majority of them were over 60 years of age. They were not a threat to a population and not instilling terror but simply saying the illegal message, "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action." To have that image or sign on a T-shirt gets you arrested right now in the UK. If we bring in laws that allow the same thing to happen, whether or not the Minister of State tells us we are lovely and do not do terrible things with terrible laws, and if the Government puts the toolbox in place that has allowed that to happen, it is creating a danger. We are going to come to this a little bit later on some of the other ways that comes in. Let us get back to it again.”
“There are certain states that are trying to get climate action labelled as terrorism. We see pushes and intents for that in the United States and elsewhere. Will climate action then be a terrorist cause for those who are literally trying to save all of our lives in relation to climate action? Does it mean that once that label has gone on it, you cannot even challenge it? Regardless of the offence, if someone has broken something and we are dealing with criminal damage, by labelling it "terrorist" the Government cuts off the ability of anybody to actually speak in support of, contextualise or talk to the wider context of what somebody has done. That is a massive piece. The figures are there in terms of what we have seen unfolding in the United Kingdom. There were 63 arrests under the terrorist legislation.”
“Take those who do not believe what the Government is labelling as terrorism is terrorism and who believe it is actions necessary under international law and they are within their rights. If they simply say they agree with that interpretation, which in some cases is still being teased out before the courts, or they agree with an interpretation that is different from a government's interpretation, where does that leave us if we follow that through? Then anything can be labelled as terrorism and anybody who suggests they do not agree with that label are themselves creating a new offence. If we follow it through further, the Minister of State said, "terrorist causes". What are going to be terrorist causes? Mandela's push against apartheid was regarded as a terrorist cause in the South African State.”
“I have also proposed the deletion of this language, "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence", from the definition of "terrorist-linked activity". My concerns are very similar. They relate to the very slippery slope that the provisions in this Bill set out. The Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, stated on Committee Stage that "The offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist act seeks to target those who glorify and justify terrorism, or who disseminate messages or images online and offline ... as a way to gather support for terrorist causes". Let us look at that language, as the Minister of State used it, and imagine how that can play out. She said to "justify terrorism".”
“The Minister of State just made a point herself that there are question marks about some offences being labelled as terrorist and then being moved out of the protection of international humanitarian law. It is something I am sure we will come to on some of my later amendments.”
“I appreciate the Minister of State's point that the labelling of things as "terrorist" can move them outside the international humanitarian law framework but that is a concern we are going to come to a little bit later. If states have huge powers to label things potentially as terrorist and move them outside of the international humanitarian law framework, yet actions and war crimes by those who may be members of state militaries are not getting captured, are not getting properly sanctioned and are not getting dealt with systemically, we do create a danger of a two-tier system in terms of who is actually obliged to comply with laws or not, and who has the protections of international law and who does not.”
“We sadly see it, even in Ireland, in the dilution of the occupied territories Bill, we see it in the continued failure to actually examine what is moving through Shannon Airport and we see it in the failure to investigate and properly step up to the fact that we have had a sevenfold increase in the export of military technologies from Ireland to Israel that maps directly onto the assault on Gaza, which is that dual-use goods have had a sevenfold expansion that directly maps on to that period of time. There is a huge question of the eyes wide shut approach to potential areas of complicity. This was a good faith attempt to try to ensure that we would be marking and having a proper standard in relation at least to this kind of activity.”
“I will make a similar point. We are not seeing international humanitarian law being upheld in its spirit or its letter. There should be consequences for those who have engaged in breaches of international humanitarian law. The Minister of State said there are domestic measures but I do not know what domestic measures there are. It has now been moved but when the football match was due to be happening, there were discussions about what screening would take place in relation to potential war crimes and breaches by those who would have been attending. There was not a sense of a satisfactory system being in place in Ireland to meet our obligations under the International Criminal Court in respect of investigating those potential breaches. There is a concern of international law not being upheld.”
“There are major concerns about whether we might find ourselves complicit and give the rubric of legitimacy to actions which are flagrantly in breach of international law, including the Genocide Convention, one of the greatest and strongest obligations on all states, which is to take all necessary steps in respect of crimes of genocide.”
“I refer to those in breach of international law, the deepest essence of what we mean when we talk about terror and terrorism, who are instilling and dealing in terror and who have terror as their goal, strategy and modus operandi in terms of what they inflict on the civilian population in places like Gaza. They might fall outside the rubric of the Bill. However, a person who prevents to seek such action might come under it. That is a problem and needs to be addressed. I will support the amendments put forward. This is not theoretical because we know Israeli armed forces have been trained in Ireland in the past.”
“I indicate my support for this set of amendments. It is important. I refer to previous legislation. I understand it was the case that participation in an armed force which is engaging in terrorist activity would have been included and was something that was identified. A shift has been taken to remove accountability for members of such armed forces in regard to terrorist offences in the Bill. Reference was made to international humanitarian law and other structures in place regarding such offences. There is a significant concern, however, that that is not always applied and there is an inequality in the Bill to which we will come later. There are measures in the Bill which could lead to somebody who is taking action to prevent breaches of international law becoming, in effect, criminalised and committing criminal offences.”
“That is a different piece. If the Minister had, as the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and others have suggested, allowed for that different mechanism for individuals' own counselling records to be introduced, then he would not have to have such a wider provision in terms of both the fair trial and the justice provision, potentially, as being two routes that would allow records to be used more broadly. Will the Minister comment on why we cannot have that idea of the separate regime in the use of a person's own records?”
“If the Minister had a separate regime in respect of persons using their own records, he would not need to put in that provision, which widens it past a fair trial or the interests of justice piece. Does he understand what I mean? Looking at the two together, he could take the approach of having a mechanism, which we did have in terms of the waiver - that is why this is a backward step from many perspectives - whereby victims of sexual violence could chose to allow their own records to be there rather than being able to apply for their records and their own story to potentially be considered in court. That is the difference. That is the piece that is a bit of a backward step. The Minister is also going through an extra hoop for people to see what someone talked about back in 2005 or 2006 in terms of their records.”
“Who owns what they have said to a councillor and their own medical records? Do they belong to a person? As such, should a person decide rather than the State saying that these are records that are out there and it will decide who it believes should be able to have access to their records? There is also the question of ownership of a person's record and story, which particularly matters to victims of sexual violence. We saw in the past that it mattered very much to victims of institutional violence. One of the things we were getting at - regardless of whether the Minister agrees with the framing of it, I would like his response to this point - was the idea that the person should be able to waive rather than there being a process where a person discloses their own records is something that could be challenged and pushed against.”
“This is especially true for persons who have undergone traumatic situations where to testify and bring evidence forward, they are able to point back exactly to the situations and the context. Someone could say "My records" about the relevant records that belong to them. This is where there is a bit of a difference. The Minister talks about balancing privacy and the right to a fair trial. I would say that there is a wider context of the question of fair trials for victims of violence. It is something the public do not have confidence in. It is not just about privacy. The Constitution provides for privacy, too, but there is also what we have under GDPR and other things, which is the idea of a person's information. It is not just privacy, but the idea of who owns people's information and their own story.”
“This was highlighted as a concern by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. It said that, despite the objections from survivors and front-line services, the Government was removing the waiver that had been in section 19A and was taking agency from persons in relation to their own information. That is an important issue. What this reminds of is the mother and baby homes and how important it was that people could own information. There is a difference. Potentially, there is an argument to be made on the side of both the prosecution and the defence whereby a person could choose a waiver in respect of their own counselling records, especially now as the Minister expands the provision to other relevant records, too. It could be lots of relevant records.”
“The backward step I am seeing is in terms of the signal it sends to those who have campaigned and pressed so strongly for the prohibition and greater protection. They do not find the solutions that have been put forward to be adequate. They do not find them to have moved the dial sufficiently and in the same way that is needed. There are two very specific matters that the Minister has not addressed as regards our amendments Nos.18 and 19. If he could come back in on those, it would be useful. I understand that the interests of justice piece is something that might be used by the prosecution but what we are pushing for in amendments Nos. 18 and 19 is the idea that there would be a separate process when a person's own notes are being used. I would love if the Minister could address that issue.”
“I also acknowledge the very detailed and nuanced compromise proposals which have also been put forward by other members of the Opposition, all of whom, I think, are seeking to engage in good faith in addressing this issue. They are trying to ensure we do not send a piece of legislation out into the world that will compound the very real feeling of many in this State that they will not be treated fairly if they experience sexual violence.”
“Is it going to be an attempt, in terms of justice, by someone to look for lesser sentencing, to impugn character or imply ambiguity about consent? It is one thing regarding a fair trial to say there is a situation where somebody may be looking to say they believe a solid injustice is being done - there is possibly a case there - or that a fair trial is not being granted, but the interests of justice, in a wider framing, speaks to the risk of these records being used in relation to attempts to impugn the character of a complainant and to create ameliorating or compensatory circumstances around a case. That is a really worrying aspect. Our preference would be that the Minister would listen to the committee but we have put forward what we believe are reasonable compromise proposals.”
“As a compromise piece, and if the Minister cannot deliver that request for a full and total ban that was put forward by the committee, or indeed the caveat of such personal information only being used with the permission of the person whose information it is, then at a minimum we believe a fairer balance is if it is only to be used in a situation where there is a risk to a fair trial. That is a higher and separate bar. I do not think this whole provision is in the interests of justice but the "interests of justice", as it is used here, is something that could be very widely construed. Is it that, for example, a person's testimony on their sexual history is going to be attempted to be used as an ameliorating factor?”
“19, separately, relates to the disclosure hearings that the Minister proposes to introduce, which would see the court consider on application whether a complainant's counselling records should be included as evidence in sexual offences trials. Our amendment proposes the court should only allow for the inclusion of these records as evidence in a situation where there is a risk to a fair trial. Again, this is a narrowing of it. I still favour a ban on their inclusion and I will be voting accordingly.”
“I think it is appropriate that there would be a different bar for a person when it relates to their personal data and testimony, much as we saw in relation to the mother and baby homes, where one of the things people wanted was access to their own records of their own testimony of what they said, and for that to be something that could be spoken about and be useful. There is an argument and there may be cases where a person, in relation to their own counselling records, would like to seek disclosure of those records - their testimony and experience. In those circumstances, amendment No. 18 would allow for disclosure. Amendment No.”
“18 and 19, that the substitution of section 19A - I refer to amendment No. 18 - would prevent the disclosure of counselling records as evidence except where it is consented to by the complainant or the victim. We believe the rewording of this section achieves a better balance. It ensures the rights on the interests of the complainant and defendant. The Minister will note that the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, which I spoke to, said the bar is quite difficult. The same bar is being applied to persons who want to speak about their own experience in counselling and those who are seeking access to that individual's private testimony from counselling.”
“That sends a signal to all of those who come forward, who spoke to the Oireachtas committees, who have given their testimonies, who talked about the impact of it, and who said what the effect of such disclosure, or the threat of such disclosure, has on them. It sends a negative signal to those who have come forward, not just those who went to the Garda or spoke to their counsellors but also those who walked in the door of the Oireachtas and contributed here. They were brave enough with that third bravery, to not just seek counselling and support and not just seek justice but also to seek the ear of our lawmakers and decision-makers. They did that bravely, the committee listened to them, the committee sent a very clear signal and that signal has not been heard and is not reflected in this legislation. We propose in our amendments, Nos.”
“It had the consensus from survivors, practitioners and experts alike that the disclosure of counselling records in sexual offences trials has a hugely traumatic impact on victims and forces them into a qualified decision on whether to pursue justice in relation to their experience of sexual violence or to seek therapeutic support or intervention. The committee's conclusion was that a complete and unconditional ban should be inserted. I know what the Minister has said about such a ban. People have come forward and said why it is a backward step. Even if this was happening previously, the decision to allow it now, in 2026, says that we think this is something that is okay.”
“They are people who have tried to put forward what might look like a better system with more safeguards. They have tried to do the work of delivering things like the presumptions of non-disclosure in a meaningful way and tried to put in safeguards. I recognise the work there. Our amendments, in comparison, are somewhat simpler. In regard to amendments Nos. 18 and 19, the Minister will know the joint committee on justice spent significant time on this issue. My colleague, Senator Ruane, also sits on that committee. In its pre-legislative scrutiny it consulted the victims and survivors of sexual violence and talked to practitioners and experts.”
“Not all, but the vast majority of victims are women. We are also talking about a whole swathe of the population who are afraid of going to the justice system for certain offences. That should be a problem we debate at length in Bill after Bill. We should try everything to build confidence in the justice system among that part of the population. Instead, stuck into a miscellaneous Bill with lots of other things we are saying "By the way, your counselling notes will now potentially be made available." This is a backward step from a situation that was already a crisis of justice. I want to go to some of the specific amendments here. First of all, I recognise the very detailed and excellent work that was done and put forward by colleagues in regard to amendment Nos. 16 and 17.”
“Regardless of whether it gets given to the person who may have attacked them and their lawyers, other strangers will read their personal trauma when making a determination on whether they want to give it to the person who may have attacked or assaulted them. That is what is ahead of a person when they are at the door of the counselling office if they have experienced sexual violence in the State. What is ahead of them if they go through the other door – into the Garda – is the idea of trials the public do not believe will treat victims fairly. They say they believe they will get a harder time than victims of other crimes. Most people feel they will not get justice. That is the problem we have. We must find ways to build levels of trust and get our way out of that system and away from the problem.”
“It is not just that people would be afraid to go to counselling, even though it is huge to have to choose between healing and justice. That is what is being said here. If someone knows counselling could be used against them, it damages the whole process. It may or may not be used. The Minister could say not to worry because it will very much be balanced out and there will be all of these caveats, but they are not enough. The very fact is that when they have the conversation they know, at a minimum, somebody else will see it who they do not know - those who will be determining if it is relevant. This is after a person has felt violated in that way.”
“We have a massive crisis in justice right now in terms of how sexual violence is dealt with and how justice is meted out in society. We should not resort to saying that it is a pity, that here is how it is and that we are worried. We should be asking what more we can do. How can we improve the situation? How can we get it down to 50% of those experiencing sexual violence in the State believing that it is worth going to the guards and going through a court case and that they will not be retraumatised and dragged over the coals, which is the common perception? That is the perception of the vast majority of people in towns, villages and families. If someone experiences sexual violence, people will tell them it is not worth it.”
“The issues of a fair trial and so forth have been cited but, again, the instances are low in terms of evidence being provided of situations where this is clearly affecting the outcome of a trial. What we know, based on the statistics, is that 71% of victims of incidents of sexual violence did not report it to the Garda. There is a crisis of justice in relation to sexual violence in this State. The same statistics and survey found that 76% of the public, not just the victims, believe that victims of sexual violence are going to get a hard time in a trial. The vast majority of the public do not have confidence in the victims of violence getting fair treatment at trial. The vast majority of those who experience sexual violence are afraid to go to the guards.”
“All of the amendments to this section are trying to come at something we all know to be true, which is that the signal being sent on the use of counselling records in sexual offences trials will have a devastating effect, not only in terms of the retraumatisation of victims or the chilling effect, as was outlined in terms of counselling and people accessing support, but it will also have a very serious chilling effect on the law. The interests of justice get talked about at one point in this Bill, but if we apply a wider frame to it, and we put a test on it and apply it to the provision allowing for counselling notes to be accessed, I do not believe that is in the interests of justice.”
“We need only look to the United States, where there have been very worrying uses of powers in relation to civilian protest very recently. In that context, I am asking whether, similar to the conditions that the Minister for Defence specifies around the use of the Defence Forces, there will be some transparency on the "class or classes of assistance as may be agreed". This could be done on an instance-by-instance basis or, ideally, by regulation that is publicly available. What are the alternative mechanisms?”
“If the Minister does not want to have the safeguard of a resolution, and since we have not had the advantage of pre-legislative scrutiny that would have allowed the teasing out of these issues properly, can he give clarity on whether he intends to bring any kind of light or clear regulation, or any accountability, in terms of the question of which class and classes of assistance this may be used for? The examples that have been given are all very worthy, but right now that is not a closed set. We do not know. It is wide open, and, with respect, the Minister may not be the Minister for justice in the future. There may be other Ministers for justice. We have seen that where there are powers of this kind, we need transparency and clarity around how they may be used.”
“What we can see is that it is very widely framed. I accept that the Minister has made the case that in many of the small instances that occur it may not be necessary or appropriate to have a resolution, but I had asked what was meant by "such class or classes of assistance as may be agreed". Can we look to the categorisation? Can we look to some form of public transparency or regulation as to the "class or classes of assistance"? The Minister seems to believe it will involve defusing bombs or looking for missing persons, etc. Let us have a number of those circumstances set out. This is done in the defence sector in general, in terms of why the armed forces might be deployed by the Minister for Defence usually. There are sets of circumstances that are listed.”
“I accept that the Minister is making the case, and he makes it strongly in terms of the resolution in relation to all of the instances. The problem is that all of the instances are all bundled in together. We have heard the examples that the Minister has given us and the examples that Senator McDowell has given us. The point is that within the scope of what is in front of us as legislation, there is no differentiation or clarity regarding those instances that we have talked about, which have happened and occurred in other countries and relate to armed forces in the context of protest, in the context of the street and perhaps in the context of the protection of private assets and a lot of other circumstances. The Minister has mentioned that this is already happening. We have to look to what is actually being added by bringing this in.”
“However, right now, it is a conversation between two Ministers. It has a huge issue of opacity, and it will damage the confidence in both civil authorities and our armed forces unless it is clarified and confidence can be restored.”
“For example, was civil power not enough in relation to the arrests of individuals in certain circumstances? Was civil power not enough in relation to perhaps the seizure or impoundment of vehicles, if that is the issue that is being talked about? Were those powers deployed? Why are we moving to the Army without having exhausted the civil powers? It is not a matter of simply saying here is a bigger hammer that I would like to use. It is a matter of whether the tools at hand within our civil authorities have been used and whether the use of this new tool has been justified at this new time. All people are looking for is transparency and clarity. If the Government does not like the time delay, I believe that our Legislature makes capable and good decisions quickly in emergencies and let us see what the other safeguards are.”
“We need things that are clear which we can all look at and know why something is happening, rather than somebody on the street seeing the Army being brought in and knowing that the Minister for justice asked the Minister for Defence to send it in without knowing what that means. Again, there is nothing to prevent transparency. The Minister might clarify if he intends to publish conditions or to seek that the Minister for Defence do so. There is no provision in the legislation around regulations on the use of the Army. The Minister could think about producing a schedule - this could be added to - in respect of what classes of assistance the Army might be used for. Will there be safeguards whereby the Army only gets brought in when it has been shown that civil power alone is not enough?”
“I am not saying that there no circumstances in which the Army should be on the streets, but we should be clear about the circumstances and conditions and when and how that would be done properly. There is nothing to stop the Minister coming back on Report Stage with a commitment to produce and publish regulations in respect of the use of the Army in support of the civil power. There could be public regulations we could all read. We could know that in any given circumstance where there is organised crime or where it is believed that there is a level of violence and risk involved, certain urgent action can be taken.”
“We should be wary of a kind of blank-cheque measure which simply states that two Ministers can decide when to use the Army to provide whatever kind of assistance they believe they want. There may be conditions that the Minister may specify. Will these be made public? Members of the public know their rights when gardaí engage with them. Will they know their rights in regard to engagement with the armed forces? Will that be a clearly known fact? If a person is approached by a member of the Defence Forces, will they know their rights and responsibilities and will the know how to respond? Where is the transparency around the conditions and circumstances? That is important in light of the effect on public confidence and democracy when the Army is on the streets.”