Catherine Ardagh
Dublin South-Central · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“Many Members here today know the real and lasting impact cancer has on individuals and families. It is something that touches almost every household in this country. It does not discriminate. The Bill is about fairness, dignity and giving cancer survivors the freedom to truly move on with their lives.”
“This is particularly in the case of child sexual abuse material investigations. An Garda Síochána regularly engages with its counterparts in other EU states and with international organisations, such as Interpol and Europol, in the fight against what are absolutely heinous crimes, as I think we can all agree.”
“A lot of investigations into child sexual abuse material may be referred from international partners, and it is imperative that gardaí have all the tools they require at their disposal to co-operate internationally in this field.”
“I take this opportunity to thank everyone here and acknowledge the constructive spirit in which Members have engaged with this Bill since 2022. There is a shared recognition across the Houses that this legislation will make a meaningful difference in people's lives, as described by Senator Nelson Murray.”
“The Government has now gone further than the voluntary code that is currently in place, reducing the relevant period from seven years to five years and increasing the sum-assured threshold from €500,000 to €650,000 to reflect the current housing market to support survivors to buy homes.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for his support for this legislation. I also note the other issues he raised in relation to wider criminal justice and Garda issues. However, I will go back to discussing Deputy Kelly's amendment, tabled by Deputy Sheehan.”
The complete record
Every one of 423 lines we hold for Catherine Ardagh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“I thank Senators once again for their contributions, support, and constructive engagement, and wish the very best to everyone whose lives have been affected by cancer and will be able to avail of the framework this legislation puts in place, like the Senator's constituent. I wish them very well. I thank everyone present for their support and their contributions. I also thank Senator Casey for his kind words.”
“Ultimately, I thank our Ministers in the Department of Finance, the Minister of State, Deputy Robert Troy, and An Tánaiste, Simon Harris. If it had not been for them adopting the legislation, it would not be here today. They deserve huge credit for pushing this Bill within their Department. The Bill cannot erase the challenges faced by individuals and families, but it can remove an unjust barrier and help to ensure that surviving cancer truly marks the beginning of a new chapter. The Bill will make a real difference to cancer survivors, supporting them in accessing mortgage protection and insurance and, in turn, enabling them to plan for their future and secure homes. That matters deeply. It is simply the right thing to do.”
“It came from the cross-party group on cancer. Deputy Johnny Guirke, a colleague of Senator Murphy's, was on it, as were Deputies Peter Burke and Jerry Buttimer of Fine Gael, Deputies Erin McGreehan, Dara Calleary and John Lahart from my own party, and Deputy Ivana Bacik. There was cross-party support for the Bill from the very get-go. Former Senator Paul Gavan was one of the co-sponsors of this Bill in the Seanad when it was introduced. This is how legislation should be done. We are a small country. When we all work together, we can see true results that remedy the injustice we have in our society. The work of those involved has helped to ensure that the lived experience of cancer survivors remains at the heart of legislation.”
“From conversations I have had and letters I have received, I know just how much this legislation means to people. I also thank, from the Irish Cancer society; Nikki Gallagher, the current CEO; Averil Power, the former CEO; Rachel Murrough, the former head of advocacy, who was there from the beginning; Steve Dempsey, the current head of advocacy; and all of the staff. I thank them for their long-standing advocacy not just on this matter, but on all cancer-related matters. It is hugely appreciated by the cancer community. I do not like using that phrase but it is appreciated by families and patients affected by cancer and by survivors. I thank them all so much for all of their hard work. I also acknowledge Adrian O'Higgins, who was the original drafter of the Bill. This Bill was a cross-party Bill.”
“These include: the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government; the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman; Insurance Ireland; the Irish Society of Medical Oncology; the Society of Actuaries in Ireland; officials from the Department of Finance, including Sarah Murphy and her colleague, Michael McGrath; and other EU member states that have similar measures in place. Their engagement, expertise and co-operation have been essential in ensuring that this Bill is robust, balanced and practical. I also pay special tribute to cancer survivors - Lydia Whelan and other survivors are here with us - and to their families, who have been affected and who have kept a strong and determined focus on this issue via the Irish Cancer Society. Their voices have been central to getting to this point.”
“It ensures meaningful protection for cancer survivors while also recognising the need for the framework to operate effectively and sustainably within the insurance market. It is also right that we acknowledge the role played by the insurance sector to date. It often gets a bad name. Insurance Ireland's voluntary code represented an important step forward. It demonstrated that progress was possible when industry, Government and advocates engaged constructively. The legislation gives effect to a programme for Government commitment and it is a measure I have prioritised since taking office. It was the first Private Member's Bill I introduced when elected to Dáil Éireann. I acknowledge the contribution of the wide range of stakeholders who have been instrumental in the development of the legislation.”
“The Government has now gone further than the voluntary code that is currently in place, reducing the relevant period from seven years to five years and increasing the sum-assured threshold from €500,000 to €650,000 to reflect the current housing market to support survivors to buy homes. The five-year remission period reflects established medical standards and the point at which the risk of recurrence is significantly reduced. A lot of people in other countries are looking at us. Across Europe, we see a range of approaches. In some countries, the relevant remission period extends to ten years. In others, it is only seven. Only a small number of member states have adopted the five-year approach. Many countries have not introduced any framework at all. The approach taken in this Bill is progressive and proportionate.”
“Many Members here today know the real and lasting impact cancer has on individuals and families. It is something that touches almost every household in this country. It does not discriminate. The Bill is about fairness, dignity and giving cancer survivors the freedom to truly move on with their lives. It is about ensuring that people who have come through cancer are not forced to retain their diagnosis as a barrier to securing a home, to protecting their family or to moving forward with their lives. This legislation seeks to remove that unjust barrier. It provides, for the first time in Irish law, a clear statutory right to have cancer-related medical history disregarded when applying for mortgage protection insurance where defined criteria are met. After our initial Bill in the Seanad, Insurance Ireland brought in a voluntary code.”
“I take this opportunity to thank everyone here and acknowledge the constructive spirit in which Members have engaged with this Bill since 2022. There is a shared recognition across the Houses that this legislation will make a meaningful difference in people's lives, as described by Senator Nelson Murray. Today marks a significant step forward for cancer survivors in Ireland. This legislation will give people who have overcome cancer fair access to mortgage protection without being penalised for their medical past. Mortgage protection is one of the areas where cancer survivors are most impacted. Having worked as a solicitor, I have seen house purchases fall through because a cancer survivor could not get mortgage protection at the last minute. This is unnecessary heartbreak for people who have already been through a great deal.”
“This is particularly in the case of child sexual abuse material investigations. An Garda Síochána regularly engages with its counterparts in other EU states and with international organisations, such as Interpol and Europol, in the fight against what are absolutely heinous crimes, as I think we can all agree. We can also see how important co-operation among law enforcement agencies is when we look at the recent arrest of a man, who is wanted in Germany for child kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage taking, as part of an international operation targeting human trafficking. As I said, there must be a clear justification for any requests coming to An Garda Síochána. Equally, as with the use of biometric analysis, there must be a clear justification for its use in any investigation for any of the purposes listed in section 43C.”
“Live FRT will be dealt with in separate legislation. I believe we have sufficient guardrails in place in this legislation. The amendments from the Seanad pull international co-operation into the purposes for which biometric analysis may be utilised. This means that where gardaí wish to utilise biometric analysis in the context of international co-operation, the safeguards in the Bill will apply, including the use of tests that are necessary and proportionate, and that there must be human oversight. A written list of use must be kept, and there is also oversight by a High Court judge, among others. It has been stressed repeatedly throughout the passage of this Bill that it is of the utmost importance that there can be effective international co-operation, and the Bill does not impede such co-operation.”
“A lot of investigations into child sexual abuse material may be referred from international partners, and it is imperative that gardaí have all the tools they require at their disposal to co-operate internationally in this field. Missing persons investigations may not always be confined to one state and the same applies to victims of crimes such as trafficking. Cross-border co-operation is imperative in these types of investigations as well. All requests from Europol and Interpol are channelled through the respective units within An Garda Síochána. There must be a clear justification for any requests from Europol or Interpol, and it must fall within the mandate of those organisations. International partners, such as other member states' police forces, operate within their own national laws and EU laws when sharing information.”
“It will not be utilised for every criminal offence, and An Garda Síochána will be best placed to determine whether it is proportionate to utilise in the context of the specific offence they have been asked for assistance with. The use of biometric analysis will be subject to a code of practice, which is required to be laid before both Houses for positive resolutions to be passed. There will also be annual oversight by an independent member of the Judiciary, who will report to the Taoiseach annually on its operation. That report will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The key point is that it may be used, not that it will be used for all international co-operation that An Garda Síochána engage in.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for his support for this legislation. I also note the other issues he raised in relation to wider criminal justice and Garda issues. However, I will go back to discussing Deputy Kelly's amendment, tabled by Deputy Sheehan. The amendment made in the Seanad to section 43C(2) is to allow, where necessary and appropriate, An Garda Síochána, in the context of international co-operation, to utilise biometric analysis, subject to a code of practice. The code of practice must be laid before both Houses for positive resolutions to be passed. The relevant EU or domestic measure, international agreement or circumstances for use of biometric analysis will aid gardaí in determining whether its use is necessary and proportionate to the criminal offence for which it is proposed to be carried out.”
“This is a minor technical amendment to change paragraph (c) of the definition of the "biometric analysis" in section 43A to add the word "including". The definition of biometric analysis is intended to afford An Garda Síochána the ability to utilise automated recognition and categorisation of physical, physiological or behavioural human features of known and unknown persons for the purposes listed in the Bill. An added functionality of paragraph (c) is its use in locating a missing person. The addition of the word "including" is intended to make it clear that this is an additional purpose rather than the sole purpose of paragraph (c).”
“What is happening is really positive, but this is only because of the advocacy work the parents in this group have done. Families are sending us a very clear message via this motion from the Social Democrats. They need to see urgency. Too many people are left teetering on the edge of an emergency placement and this creates enormous trauma for individuals, their families and their wider circles. We have to move away, as my colleague has said, from a system that reacts to a crisis to one that plans ahead. I thank the Social Democrats again and I hope we can match the determination of these families with the urgency they deserve.”
“I spoke before about my son having level 3 autism, with high-support needs. He will, most likely, need a residential place in the future. This is not something I have considered as much as the parents in this campaign, so this is why I am so grateful for all the work and advocacy they are putting in. Like every parent, I want my son to have the opportunity to live in his own community surrounded by people and places he knows. None of us wants to be left wondering what will happen when we are no longer there to care for our children. I know the Minister, Deputy Foley, and the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, have been engaged with stakeholders and colleagues across Government. A huge amount of work has been done on this issue and new initiatives are coming down the pipeline.”
“I thank the Social Democrats for bringing forward this motion today. I thank the Before We Die campaign for leading this initiative. I am grateful to Lorraine Doyle, from Dublin South-Central, for having spoken to me. I met her in relation to the campaign. From my own experience, I know just how much energy it takes to advocate for someone you love. Believe me when I say that as a public representative it is much easier to advocate for people who you are not related to or do not have a vested interest in. I know this from the experience of fighting for services for my own child. It takes huge strength as a family to advocate for your loved one. It is not easily done. I thank everyone for the huge amount of work and advocacy they have put into fighting for their family members.”
“When it comes to regular legal privilege, such as between a solicitor and client, one would get the material only if it were absolutely relevant. If it were not relevant, it would not be disclosed. It would not be admissible.”
“Each EU member state regulates the disclosure of sensitive medical and therapeutic records differently through its own criminal procedure laws. In each jurisdiction, the courts must balance the necessity of the evidence for the prosecution or defence against the profound intrusion into the victim's privacy that the disclosure of personal records may entail. In Ireland, section 19A of the 1992 Act will apply, and the Minister's amendments are clearly intended to rebalance the current statutory regime in favour of protecting the victim's right to privacy. Ireland cannot act unilaterally to limit the scope of the regulation in this way. Likewise, it is for each member state, including Ireland, to determine the national rules that should apply to the disclosure of personal records in sexual offence trials.”
“In the ordinary course of events, any order by a court to produce such records would be directed to that counsellor and not to a service provider under the e-evidence regulation. Therefore, while I understand the concerns of Senators, the fact of the matter is that the e-evidence regulation is unlikely to play any significant role in applications for the production of such records, much less their disclosure during a trial. Additionally, the regulation, which will have direct effect in all member states, provides under Article 5.2 that a European production order may be issued only if a similar order could have been issued under the same conditions in a similar domestic case. Thus, the relevant national law will apply in each jurisdiction.”
“Nonetheless, the Minister is confident that the proposed amendments, if accepted by the Oireachtas, will end the routine disclosure to the accused of the complainant's counselling notes in the trial. Neither the e-evidence regulation nor this Bill is the appropriate vehicle to legislate for this issue. Applications under the e-evidence regulation for the disclosure of counselling records during sexual offence proceedings in this or any other EU jurisdiction are likely to be exceedingly rare. In most jurisdictions, including our own, the person in possession or control of counselling records will normally be the counsellor or therapist concerned, not a service provider.”
“From now on, every time such counselling notes or personal records are sought by the defence, a court will carefully scrutinise the material and make an impartial and objective decision on whether disclosure is warranted. Those amendments will also provide for a presumption of non-disclosure, ensuring that the default position is that these records are not to be disclosed. The exception will be where the court is satisfied, after examining the records, that they are likely to be relevant to an issue at trial and that there would be a real risk of an unfair trial in the absence of such disclosure, or that it is otherwise in the interest of justice to so order. The Minister was advised by the Attorney General that it was not possible to introduce an outright ban on the disclosure of counselling notes, as to do so would be unconstitutional.”
“I hope this will serve to provide some reassurance to survivors and to the Senators proposing these amendments. We can all agree that the current statutory regime in Ireland relating to the use of counselling records in criminal trials for sexual offences is unacceptable. It is for that reason that the Minister has proposed, via the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026, which was recently debated in this House, to amend section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 to restrict the disclosure of counselling records and other personal records in sexual offence trials. The amendment would delete the waiver provision contained in section 19A, which has all too often meant that victims have failed to benefit from the protections provided by the legislation.”
“I thank the Senators for this amendment and commend them for raising what is a very significant topic of concern and one that has been debated recently in this House at length. I understand exactly why this issue matters so much to survivors of sexual violence and domestic abuse. For many survivors, counselling is a crucial and essential part of recovery. Counselling notes record some of the most private and painful information that a person will ever share, often at a time when they are at their most vulnerable. However, regrettably, I cannot accept this amendment. I want to set out why, in a manner that reflects the protections being put in place within the State and also in the context of the e-evidence regulation itself, to which this Bill will give further effect.”
“6, the e-evidence package, as set out in the relevant regulation and directive, is an EU-wide measure. Article 28 of the regulation provides for the European Commission to establish a detailed programme for monitoring and reporting the outputs, results and impacts of the regulations and member states are obliged to gather the statistical data specified in Article 28(2). Some of the data may be collected by the director but it would not be right to impose a legal obligation on the director to gather data that may be more easily collected through other sources. The new regulation already provides a legally binding mechanism for monitoring and reporting and would not be appropriate or a good use of resources to try to create a duplicate system at this stage.”
“Regretfully, I cannot accept these amendments. Section 20 requires the publication of an annual report, which shall include such information as the director considers appropriate or as the director may direct. The section deliberately did not prescribe in detail exactly what statistical data should be included. We are setting up a new entity, and until we have some experience of how it operates, it would be premature to determine what statistical information is most relevant and available. I believe we should maintain a flexible approach at this stage, but I will put on the record that I see no reason for the information referred to in the amendment not to be included in the annual report in due course. I remind Senators that the Freedom of Information Act will apply, so there will be no question of hiding information. On amendment No.”
“In particular, the director can seek a compliance report to clarify what the issues are and may enter into an agreement with the service provider setting out the steps to be taken to remedy any issues. Furthermore, there is a legal obligation on adjudication officers under section 50(2)(f) to give special consideration to SMEs when considering the imposition of fines. The purpose is to ensure compliance and the imposition of fines is very much a last resort.”
“The purpose of establishing an independent office is to ensure that the Minister, as a member of the Executive, does not have any direct role in the enforcement of the obligations on the service providers under this Bill. It would be neither desirable nor practical for the Minister to publish guidance notes when he or she has no role in determining compliance with the provisions. That is why section 22 provides that the director may issue guidance notes, and I will not agree to an amendment that would undermine the role of the director in that regard. I would again point out that the provisions at sections 38 and 40 are specifically designed to allow the director to remedy breaches by service providers without the need to proceed to investigations and the imposition on fines.”
“In terms of measures to reduce the administrative burden, I will point Senators to sections 38 and 40 of the Bill, which are specifically designed to allow the director to remedy breaches by service providers without the need to proceed to investigations and the imposition of fines. In particular, the director can seek a compliance report to clarify what the issues are and may enter into an agreement with the service provider setting out the steps to be taken to remedy any issues identified. That said, if there is a case of non-compliance, there will be an administrative burden on service providers that are subject to investigation. This cannot be avoided if a proper, fair and impartial investigation is to be carried out.”
“Obviously, our Department is aware that the SMEs are the backbone of the Irish economy. Regretfully, I cannot accept any of these amendments. With regard to amendment No. 2, the legal obligations on service providers, including small-to-medium-sized enterprises, are determined by the regulation and directive and it is not open to the director to alter them. Furthermore, even if it were possible for Ireland to exclude SMEs from the scope of the e-evidence package, to do so would create a gap that could easily be exploited by criminals by moving to services offered by SMEs. This would seriously undermine the effectiveness of the e-evidence package.”
“In addition to the safeguards already outlined, I would also point to Recital 11 of the regulation, which confirms that nothing in the regulation should be interpreted as prohibiting the refusal of a European production order by an enforcing authority where there are reasons to believe that the order has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of a person's gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, nationality, language or political opinions. For the reasons I have just outlined, I cannot accept the amendment.”
“Article 12 provides for a range of grounds on which an enforcing authority may refuse to execute a European production order. These grounds include: where the data is protected by immunities or privilege under the law of the enforcing state or where the data requested are covered by rules relating to freedom of the press or freedom of expression of other media where execution would result in a manifest breach of fundamental rights, as provided for by Article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; where the execution order would violate the principle of ne bis in idem whereby a person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offence; and where the conduct for which the order has been issued does not constitute an offence under the law of the enforcing state save in circumstances where the offence is listed in Annex 9 of the regulation and carries a maximum custodial sentence of at least three years in the issuing state.”
“The e-evidence regulation already contains certain safeguards, including the provision in Article 1(3) which states that the regulation shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect the fundamental rights and legal principles as enshrined in the charter and in Article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union. The regulation also has specific safeguards where, under Article 8 the Irish enforcing authority must be notified of incoming European production orders, unless they relate to an offence in the issuing state committed by a person who resides in that state an execution can be refused. Article 10 provides a channel whereby the service provider may alert the Irish enforcing authority when it considers that the order would interfere with freedom of expression.”
“I regret that I cannot accept the Senator's amendment. The e-evidence package provides for co-operation between member states of the European Union. It does not allow one member state to unilaterally suspend its operation. The amendment would be in clear breach of our legal obligations under EU law. On a point of principle, giving a member of the Executive the power to interfere with the exercise of judicial functions by a judicial authority within the European Union would be a breach of the democratic principles of the separation of powers and the rule of law. The director is being made independent specifically to prevent any suggestion that he or she might be subject to the influence or a direction from a member of the Executive as regards to the implementation of judicial orders.”
“The Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration will now progress work on the revision of the general scheme of the Criminal Justice (Community Sanctions) Bill 2014. I thank the Senator again for giving me an opportunity to explain the progress on electronic monitoring.”
“It should be noted that, at present, the Judiciary is already permitted to consider a CSO in lieu of a custodial sentence of more than 12 months. The amendment will create a statutory obligation on judges to demonstrate that they have considered a CSO as an alternative to sentences of up to 24 months. In June 2026, the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, published a policy review of the Criminal Justice (Community Sanctions) Bill 2014. The purpose of the proposed Bill is to update the Probation of Offenders Act 1907 with modern provisions dealing with community sanctions and the role of the Probation Service in the criminal justice system. The policy review proposes changes to the 2014 Bill's general scheme to reflect more recent developments in Irish penal policy.”
“They also help with the management of prison numbers, providing a more cost-effective criminal justice response to minor offences. The Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026, which completed Report and Final Stages in the Seanad on 2 July, includes amendments to the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983, aimed at encouraging greater use of community service orders, CSOs. The amendments will allow a court to order up to 480 hours of community service, the current statutory maximum being 240 hours. They will also oblige the courts to consider a CSO in lieu of a prison sentence of up to 24 months' duration, the current statutory threshold being 12 months, and to give reasons where they consider that a CSO should not be imposed in such a case.”
“I thank Deputy Ryan. She makes a great case for the pilot. The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, is committed to implementing electronic monitoring in line with the commitments set out in the programme for Government. The electronic monitoring project is progressing and is expected to be operational this year. We are quite far down the road with it. The Minister is also committed to progressing other commitments in the programme for Government relating to the expanded use of community sanctions that will contribute to reducing prison overcrowding and improving efforts to rehabilitate offenders. Non-custodial penalties, particularly supervised community sanctions, can play a significant role in addressing criminality, reducing reoffending and protecting the public.”
“I note that, as of March, 12 probationary gardaí were assigned to the Limerick division. They are having a huge impact. People have commented to me as a public representative that they are feeling safer. They have been quite successful. Operation Thor has been ongoing for quite some time. It combats burglaries and organised crime in more rural areas, especially where the national road network is being used. As Senator Ryan is aware, a lot of progress is being made by the Department when it comes to retail crime. When combined, all of these will hopefully have a huge effect on businesses and individuals in Limerick. Obviously I cannot commit to saying where the pilot will be, but I thank Senator Ryan for her suggestion.”
“The pilot approach will allow for processes and procedures to be tested for a wider scale national roll-out, while also supporting the agencies involved to build capability and knowledge of the electronic monitoring system. Insights from the pilot will inform any future national roll-out procurement. Under budget 2026, funding of €2.1 million was allocated for the project to allow for staffing, procurement and other set-up costs. The electronic monitoring project is progressing and is expected to be operational in 2026. The request for tender closed on 14 April and I am advised that a number of tenders were received by the deadline. As this is a live competition, I am precluded from making further comments on the process. All updates regarding this competition will be made through the national tendering portal - eTenders.”
“This includes consideration of technology, data protection, procurement, implementation and an operating model design. The electronic monitoring pilot will focus on individuals on temporary release nationally and those admitted to bail in the pilot area. It is proposed to utilise up to 50 electronic tags during this phase. This is expected to provide capacity to monitor between 90 and 150 people in a year, but exact numbers monitored will depend on a range of factors including the individual's length of time on bail or on temporary release, and an individual's personal circumstances, including ongoing suitability and compliance with conditions.”
“A number of scenarios are covered by the legislation currently which allow for electronic monitoring, in particular provisions which allow for the tagging of people on temporary release and in some circumstances people on bail, as the Senator outlined. My thoughts are with the victim of the crime that was committed while the assailant was on bail. Electronic monitoring has the potential to act as another avenue to tackle overcrowding in our prison system. Existing legislation, including the Bail Act 1997, as amended, and the Criminal Justice Act 2006, as amended, provides for electronic monitoring in certain circumstances. A steering group is in place made up of sectoral representatives who are driving the delivery of this project to operationalise electronic monitoring.”
“I thank the Senator very much for her kind words. I also thank her for volunteering Limerick for the trial. The Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, is pursuing a dual approach to address the issue of prison overcrowding by increasing prison capacity and pursuing further measures to support increasing the use of non-custodial sanctions like the Senator mentioned. The Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration is leading a cross-agency project to introduce electronic monitoring of specific categories of individuals, as committed to in the programme for Government and in line with existing legal provisions.”
“Yes. Various stakeholders have expressed their appreciation and satisfaction as to how the series of meetings have progressed thus far. I am informed that they thanked the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration for its willingness to initiate a programme for change and look forward to working positively with the Department in the future.”
“Any stakeholder organisation that would like to contribute is also welcome to engage with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration on the matter. I am sure the NARGC has contacted the Department.”
“I am listening and the Senator’s point is very well made. Officials from my Department intend to continue with the ongoing stakeholder engagement meetings and the proactive and open engagement that has taken place. I will pass on the point the Senator has made. The objective of the meetings is to provide a mechanism for ongoing engagement with firearms stakeholders across a broad range of areas within the firearms community, ensuring their valuable insights in specific areas of firearms can be considered in any future policy or legislative changes that may and, it is safe to say, need to arise. Stakeholder organisations are encouraged to make submissions to the meetings, engage with other stakeholders and contribute.”
“I am informed that reform of the current licensing system is one of the issues being discussed at the meetings. The administration surrounding firearms licensing is very complex, as the Senator is probably very well aware. It is governed by both national and European legislation to which each member state must adhere. Diligent consideration must be given to the potential ramifications of any contemplated change. Accordingly, this process is incremental. It is intended to continue the proactive and open engagement that has taken place thus far. A consultation phase is due to commence in the coming months with official firearms representative organisations to discuss the findings of recent engagements. I thank the Senator again and look forward to working with him on this matter going forward.”
“Extensive consultation has been undertaken and is continuing, and there is regular and structured engagement between the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration and firearms users. I am informed that the most recent engagement took place on 28 April 2026, and more than 20 representatives of the firearms community and firearms stakeholder organisations attended a meeting with officials. This was the fourth in a series of meetings that have taken place since 18 September 2025. I understand there will be further engagement with me personally and the Department. The stakeholders attending these meetings include several from representative organisations, experts in technical areas of firearms and members of An Garda Síochána’s firearms policy unit.”
“Licensing officers, when considering firearms licence applications, are considered personae designatae and cannot have their decision-making fettered in any way. Neither the Department nor I have a role in the issuing, or otherwise, of firearms licences. I note the Senator’s comments on inconsistencies in the implementation and administration of firearms licensing. He mentioned a stakeholder engagement meeting where certain comments were out of order. I cannot confirm or deny that because I was not present at the meetings. Nevertheless, I am advised that reform of the firearms licensing system has been under consideration for a number of years, as the Senator well knows and has highlighted.”