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 2 of 9.
“I thank the Senator for his kind remarks at the outset. I thank him for raising the issue today. Firearms are now one of my delegated responsibilities. While the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration is the competent authority for the importation and exportation of firearms and the licensing of firearms dealers, An Garda Síochána, as the Senator knows, has a range of functions with regard to the operation of firearms legislation, including the issuing of firearm certificates and authorisations, and is the competent authority for the licensing of firearms within the State. The Firearms Acts 1925 to 2023 and the Firearms (Firearm Certificates for Non-Residents) Act 2000 both give the authority for granting licences to superintendents and chief superintendents of An Garda Síochána.”
“As this new framework is implemented over the coming months, it will further strengthen confidence in Ireland's international education sector while ensuring that students can continue to choose Ireland knowing that appropriate quality assurance and learner protection measures are in place. I thank the Deputy again for raising this matter today.”
“I assure the Deputy that my Department is continuing to monitor the situation closely. As I have outlined, all education providers with programmes listed on the ILEP are required to have learner protection insurance arrangements in place as part of their criteria for inclusion on the list. These arrangements are intended to provide protections for learners where a provider is unable to deliver a programme as planned. More broadly, the transition from ILEP to TrustEd Ireland represents a significant strengthening of the quality framework for international education in Ireland.”
“I note the Deputy's points. We cannot allow profiteering on foot of students whose families have made huge sacrifices to send them to Ireland to learn English. The new TrustEd Ireland quality mark will hopefully provide a better regulated environment for providers so that when people are coming to Ireland they will be able to come here with the assurance that their college will be well accredited and from that will flow the stamp 2 visas in the correct format. Obviously, my Department has responsibility for immigration matters solely. Any sort of contractual disputes in relation to providers would have to be dealt with in a different forum. I fully appreciate that any students affected are seeking certainty at what is undoubtedly, especially for students already in Ireland, a very difficult time.”
“Applications are currently being reviewed for the first application cycle and we expect decisions to issue in the coming months.”
“TrustEd Ireland is a new statutory quality mark and part of a suite of legislative measures designed to further protect international learners. Once the ILEP is discontinued, only education providers granted authorisation to use the TrustEd Ireland mark will be eligible to recruit students from outside the EEA to English-language programmes, foundation programmes and higher education programmes leading to awards within the national framework of qualifications. The new mark will be awarded to higher education and English-language education providers that have demonstrated that they meet national standards. This will ensure a quality experience for international learners from pre-enrolment through to the completion of their programme of education and training.”
“My Department has no function in relation to disputes between students, agents and their education providers in seeking refunds, course transfers or other rebates. Having said that, I understand that the Department of further education is very much aware of the situation and I note from the Deputy's contribution that the standard of English-language courses and our reputation as a provider of such courses is of concern. Additionally, I can inform the Deputy that the ILEP is being superseded by TrustEd Ireland, the international education mark launched in September 2024 by Quality and Qualifications Ireland and our colleagues in the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science.”
“Education providers such as Student Campus college are required to have met certain standards and requirements to have their programmes included on the ILEP and be accredited by recognised Irish awarding bodies. All providers must remain in compliance with the relevant criteria to retain a listing on the ILEP. Instances of non-compliance may, and have, resulted in the removal of schools from the ILEP. When a provider is listed on the ILEP, they are required to notify my Department of matters such as, but not limited to, any changes to the ownership of the school, any change in locations or additional centres, changes to their academic management or teachers, and student capacity numbers. It should be noted that the relationship between a student or agent and any education provider is private and contractual.”
“I thank the Deputy for her question. The students, prospective students and teachers are in a very difficult situation. What is really important now is that we have a clear information stream going to the students so they know what is going on. The Department is aware of the current issues regarding Student Campus college in Limerick. Officials in my Department and the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science are monitoring the ongoing and evolving situation. They will provide information in relation to the status of any affected students' immigration permissions in due course. I can advise the Deputy that in order for a non-EEA national student to register for a stamp 2 immigration permission, they must enrol in and commence a course of study from the interim list of eligible programmes.”
“Since the fund launched in 2022, it has supported 127 community safety projects nationally. Over successive years the community safety fund has expanded in both reach and impact, supporting projects addressing youth engagement, domestic and gender-based violence, restorative justice, substance misuse and antisocial behaviour.”
“I agree with the Deputy. Words like "multidisciplinary" and "multidepartmental" are often used very flippantly but education has a piece, as do criminal justice and the HSE. We, as legislators, have a piece. Supporting our local community is a part of the puzzle. We all must play our part in it. On what we can do from a community point of view, I have been to many of the projects in Ballyfermot like skate parks. The Deputy will be aware of the community safety fund, an annual grant fund that supports short- to medium-term projects which allow for the proceeds of crime to be directed back into communities. We have seen some really successful projects around the country where we use ill-gotten gains to fund innovative local projects aimed at building stronger, safer communities. I know Deputies from across the House welcome this.”
“The Criminal Justice (Engagement of Children in Criminal Activity) Act 2024 makes it an offence for an adult to compel, coerce, direct or deceive a child for the purpose of engaging in criminal activity or induce, invite, aid, abet, counsel or procure a child to engage in criminal activity. On CAB and-----”
“As the Deputy knows, we are coming up to the end of our youth justice strategy and we will have a new strategy as of the end of 2027. The Greentown project has been extended. The extension of the programme has reduced the influence of criminal networks on children at risk of involvement in crime and improved the likelihood of pro-social outcomes for children who are already involved in criminal networks. We know that investment in these programmes does work, albeit in pilot and smaller models. I agree with the Deputy that this will have to be rolled out across the country, especially across large urban areas. We know, because we represent those areas, that that is where we have the problem.”
“The first Greentown programme progress report from 2023 found that there have been notable improvements in reducing the influence of criminal networks in the trial site communities, including that children and families are better enabled to withstand the powerful attraction of network membership and to make pro-social choices. I am hoping the Greentown project will be rolled out across our communities in the future. Support is provided from An Garda Síochána and expert youth justice services specialising in family support and engaging with hard-to-reach young people.”
“An interesting programme the Deputy may be aware of is the Greentown programme, which aims to disrupt the grooming of children into network-related criminal activity by adults and provides children with meaningful and practical routes out of these networks. It is made up of four strands, namely, an intensive family programme to help with parenting and general family functioning; providing young people with pro-social opportunities; supporting communities to withstand gang and network influences; and targeting groomers and disrupting their networks.”
“The Deputy, the Minister and I all represent inner-city Dublin constituencies and we know very well the devastation the grooming of children into criminality has on all our communities. I have delegated responsibility for youth justice, and it has been a priority of mine since before my appointment to the Department of justice. I am very glad to take this question today. The Government’s Youth Justice Strategy 2021-2027 creates a whole-of-government framework to address the challenges around children and young adults' involvement in the criminal justice system. It assesses how we can stop young people from becoming recurring adult offenders, as the Deputy described. Among the key actions within the strategy is targeting harder to reach groups, including those subject to grooming and coercive control by criminals.”
“I take the opportunity to commend the gardaí on the street. We are seeing huge effort being put in gardaí, not just in Dublin city but on a nationwide basis. We can see the number of people going through Templemore and the standard of the gardaí coming out of Templemore is really noticeable. Population trends and community trends are always under review. We are using census data to ensure that populations are represented according to increases in the local population. This will be reviewed on a continuous basis. The Deputy's point is well made and I thank him for asking this question.”
“In the ten years since Operation Thor began, burglary and related offences have declined overall, and the number of residential burglaries during the winter months of October to March have fallen by a remarkable 75%.”
“Obviously, population trends are monitored on a continuous basis, but looking at what we are doing to ensure overall community safety in County Meath, the Department is pleased to secure €8 million in budget 2026 for the national office for community safety to ensure the office carries out its functions, including its support for local community partnerships and the work on the national development of a national strategy for community safety. Much of the Deputy's constituency is obviously rural. One of our success stories is Operation Thor. Several Garda operations are already supporting the plan, such as Operations Thor and Táirge, which tackle burglaries and theft from homes and retail crime, respectively. In recent years, An Garda Síochána has had unprecedented success in reducing and preventing burglaries through Operation Thor.”
“We are informed that as of 31 May 2026, there are 561 gardaí assigned to the Meath-Westmeath division. This includes 323 gardaí assigned to the Meath south and Meath north community engagement areas, which include Ashbourne, Kells, Navan and Trim.”
“This will support recruitment of up to 1,000 gardaí, 200 more Garda staff and additional members of the Garda Reserve. Significant initiatives have been taken to boost recruitment, which have been reflected in the numbers entering the Garda College, which was just under 800 in 2025. As the Deputy will know, recruitment into An Garda Síochána has gathered real momentum and we are determined to ensure we have a steady pipeline of new recruits into the Garda College so that we can see more gardaí assigned all around the country. Interestingly, the most recent recruitment competition, which closed on 3 June 2026, attracted 4,115 applications. This brings the total number of applications received to join An Garda Síochána to over 15,000 since February 2025.”
“The Garda Commissioner is responsible for the management and allocation of Garda resources. We are assured by the Commissioner that, when allocating Garda resources, consideration is given to commitments and undertakings outlined in the annual policing plan. The requirements of all Garda divisions nationwide are also taken into account, which include local and national crime trends and workloads, policing arrangements and operational strategies, local population and trends, and geographical area and size. Transfer applications, including welfare, personnel issues and concerns, are also taken into account. Under budget 2026, the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, secured funding of €2.74 billion for An Garda Síochána to support recruitment and staffing.”
“As Senators know, these safeguards have already been back before the House to ensure they will have full effect and will stand the test to ensure the legislation is properly utilised with these important safeguards. I will now address amendment No. 19, proposed by Senator Higgins, which would amend the existing section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the principal Act.”
“As I said in my previous intervention, the Bill will improve and add additional safeguards to the public provocation offence in section 4A of the principal Act. I do not propose to repeat my earlier intervention but, for the reasons I have outlined already, I must oppose amendments Nos. 9 to 14, inclusive. I note that in her amendments Senator Higgins gets quite prescriptive in terms of what she is seeking to exclude. I understand that but sometimes when we are so prescriptive it can be counterintuitive. I would like the Senator to know that a huge amount of work has been put in by the Department to ensure these safeguards are adequate.”
“Apologies for my voice. Please bear with me. I thank the Senators for their amendments and contributions. Unfortunately, I cannot accept Senator O'Reilly's amendment No. 9. The directive, under Article 5, requires that the public provocation offence encompass direct and indirect incitement. An example of indirect incitement might be how to build a bomb or other publications. The amendments set down today seek to introduce various changes to section 3 of the Bill or to delete the proposed restructuring of this offence, as put forward in the Bill. Section 3 proposes a new form of words for the offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence in section 4A of the principal Act.”
“These additional elements serve to act as safeguards in ensuing it is only those who set about to deliberately set about to incite terrorist activity and, where it is reasonable, a terrorist activity would result, are captured by the offence. I cannot support the amendments.”
“Let us contrast that with section 3 of this Bill, which carries a much higher burden of proof to bring about a successful prosecution for the offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence by glorification. It must be shown that the person possessed the requisite intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity when he or she distributed, published or caused to be distributed or published a message inciting or glorifying, including by praise or celebration, a terrorist activity. It is also a requirement of the offence that such distribution or publication must give rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result.”
“There is a marked difference between the two statutory provisions in question. In Ireland, we are proposing section 3 of the Bill, which reformulates the definition of public provocation offence and what exists under section 13 of the Terrorism Act in England and Wales. Under the legislation in England and Wales, there is no requirement for a person's act or behaviour to carry with it the intention of seeking to cause the committal of a terrorist offence. It is much broader than that, simply requiring that in a public place a person wears or displays an article that would arouse suspicion that the person is a supporter of a proscribed organisation.”
“These ingredients serve to act as safeguards, ensuring that it is only those who set out deliberately to incite terrorist activity and it is reasonable to assume that a terrorist activity as defined in the Act would result are captured by this offence. The high standard of proof contained within the reframed section 4A ensures that a person's fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and association - to be allowed carry a Bobby Sands banner - are protected, and situations do not arise where activities that are otherwise lawful are considered as falling within the scope of this section. Senators Higgins and Murphy just raised a case that arose in the UK and the legislation in the UK. Thankfully, the law in England and Wales is different from ours. This legislation will be different.”
“In summary, the proposed new section 4A contains two new safeguards that are not present in the current version of section 4A:. The message itself must reasonably constitute an incitement to commit a terrorist activity as defined in the Act, or to glorify a terrorist activity as defined in the Act when objectively tested. The publication of the message must give rise to a reasonable apprehension that someone might, as a result of such publication, commit a terrorist act. Paragraph (b) is also an objective test. The use of a reasonableness test is an objective legal standard used in law to prevent arbitrary or irrational interpretation, assessing circumstances against a hypothetical reasonable person's response or action.”
“Parliamentary counsel confirmed that the revised text affords greater protection to someone exercising their right to freedom of expression than the current section 4A. The current section 4A simply refers to the publication of a message. It does not say anything about the nature or content of the message. The only thing that makes the publication of the message criminal under the current section 4A is the intent of the publisher. Proof of that on its own will not be sufficient to secure a conviction under the reframed section 4A. Furthermore, the publisher of the message must not only intend to incite the commission of a terrorist offence, but the published material must give rise to a reasonable apprehension that a terrorist act could result. The latter element is also absent from the current section 4A.”
“For the purposes of this Part, a person publicly provokes the commission of a terrorist offence if— (a) he or she, with the intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity, distributes or publishes, or causes to be distributed or published, by any means (including via the internet) to the public or a section of the public a message— (i) inciting, or that could reasonably be construed as inciting, persons to commit a terrorist activity, or (ii) that glorifies (including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity, and (b) such distribution or publication gives rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result.”.”
“For the purposes of this Part, public provocation to commit a terrorist offence means the intentional distribution, or otherwise making available, by whatever means of communication by a person of a message to the public, with the intent of encouraging, directly or indirectly, the commission by a person of a terrorist activity.” The revised section 4A as proposed by this Bill provides: “4A.”
“This clarification stems from the requirements of Article 5 of the 2017 EU directive. The clarification does not change the substantive offence and provocation by way of glorification is encompassed in the offence as it currently stands. Its explicit reference now in the amendment is an exercise in clarity and compliance. Section 3 of the Bill also reformulates the wording of the offence provision more generally to give clarity to the elements necessary for a prosecution of public provocation. This serves to safeguard the offence from abuse and misuse. The current wording in the principal Act reads: “4A.”
“Parliamentary counsel confirmed the necessity for the restructuring of this offence, both from a compliance perspective and to add greater safeguards as to its interpretation and use. The purpose of this legislation is to give full effect to the provisions of a 2017 EU directive on combating terrorism that are not already provided for in Irish law. Article 5 of the directive requires that public provocation to commit terrorism be criminalised. As mentioned on previous Stages, the amendment of section 4A of the principal Act does not create a new or separate offence of public provocation by way of glorification, nor does it make unduly vague and expansive. Rather, the amendment clarifies that the scope of the public provocation offence is such that it can include public provocation by way of the glorification of terrorism.”
“I thank the Senators who put this amendment before the House and made contributions today. I understand the genuine questions raised by Senator Higgins. Some were rhetorical and some were genuine, but I understand the point being made. This amendment seeks to delete the phrase "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence" from the definition of terrorist-linked activity in section 2 of the Bill. The effect of this amendment would be to remove public provocation as an offence under the Bill. Noting the concerns around the public provocation offence, the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, committed to reflecting on the wording of this on Committee Stage in the Dáil and sought further advice from parliamentary counsel on the proposed changes.”
“I understand and appreciate the point the Senator has made and where these concerns come from. I note and reiterate that the current terrorism framework legislation before the House is not the correct law to address matters that have been raised today. Violations under international law, as outlined, by the armed forces of a state are already crimes in our domestic law. As was stated, the International Criminal Court Act 2006 sets out that in Ireland crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide are criminal offences. It also makes it an offence to facilitate the commission of these offences, including aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in their commission, which the acts of those amendments could be categorised as. I have nothing further to add.”
“Overlaying a terrorism label onto this framework where all acts of terrorism are automatically illegal is redundant, disruptive and potentially dangerous. This is particularly the case where the armed forces or even the population of one side in a conflict is labelled as terrorist, as this can serve to circumvent the protections of international humanitarian law. For these reasons, I do not support the amendments.”
“It allows for the prosecution for such offences in Ireland while empowering authorities to assist the International Criminal Court in the investigation or prosecution of such offences. The Act also provides for universal jurisdiction over war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. An individual accused of such crimes can be prosecuted in Ireland regardless of their nationality or where the offence occurred. A similar form of universal jurisdiction is provided for in respect of certain offences under the Geneva Conventions Act 1962, as amended by the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1998. Thus, violations of international humanitarian law by the armed forces of a state are already crimes in our domestic law. International humanitarian law already delineates the spectrum of lawful and unlawful conduct in war.”
“This is one of the core principles of Irish foreign policy and includes customary international law as well as international agreements Ireland is party to. These include the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions, which established international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war. In relation to international criminal law, most significantly Ireland gave effect to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court via the International Criminal Court Act 2006. This enables Irish courts to punish breaches of international law that fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, namely, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It also makes it an offence to facilitate the commission of these offences, including aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in their commission.”
“The aim of the Bill is to give full effect to that directive. Therefore, the proposed offences fall outside the scope of the Bill. This exclusion is not intended to allow armed forces to act with impunity. Rather, it reflects the importance of maintaining the distinct legal frameworks that govern armed conflict and terrorism. International humanitarian law regulates the conduct of parties of law. While it allows certain acts of military violence may be lawful, it absolutely prohibits attacks against civilians. Such violations of international humanitarian law are war crimes. Acts of terrorism are always criminal offences and terrorists are criminals. There is no lawful terrorism. I emphasise the commitment to the rule of international law is enshrined in our Constitution.”
“I would like to condemn the actions of the IDF, the atrocities carried out in Palestine, the killing of innocent civilians and children and the starvation of a population, as well as the destruction of civilian infrastructure. The principal Act does not exclude the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict and in the exercise of their official duties from being categorised as terrorist offences, insofar as those activities are governed by humanitarian or other rules of international law. This was a requirement of the original underlying EU measures underpinning the Bill, namely the 2002 EU Council framework decision on combating terrorism. That requirement remains in the 2017 EU directive on combating terrorism, and the primary Act, on foot of the Bill, will give effect to it.”
“They would insert a new section 4F into the principal Act. Combined, they create new terrorist offences in the engaging in terrorist-linked activity offence in section 6 of the principal Act. The effect is to criminalise as terrorism travel, organising travel, providing training, receiving training and recruitment for the purposes of serving in the armed forces of a state engaged in war crimes against humanity or genocide. As explained, when the Bill was before the Dáil the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, understood the intention behind these amendments was to ensure that those who partake in or facilitate acts that contribute to the commission of breaches of international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide at the behest of a state via the armed forces, can be convicted of terrorist offences.”
“I thank Senators who have contributed to the debate. I will address amendment No. 1, which I understand has not been moved. It provides interpretation in respect of the terms "crimes against humanity", "genocide" and "war crime" to be inserted into section 3 of the interpretation section of the principal Act, linking these terms to the definition in the statute of the International Criminal Court, which I take to refer to the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, and 8 provide for new terms to be included as part of the definition of terrorist-linked activity in the definitions section 4 of the principal Act. These new terms are further defined and expanded definitions to be inserted as proposed in amendments Nos. 15 to 18, inclusive, as discussed.”
“It is unclear what process a court could use to determine whether a victim had been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, nor is it clear what is required to enable informed and safe decision-making in this context or, for that matter, what constitutes informed and safe decision-making. For these reasons, I am unable to accept these amendments.”
“They are often a lifeline for people who find themselves in these harrowing situations and their services make a real and important difference to their clients. The Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, has been clear in his determination to address domestic violence and part of that determination means funding these vital services. For example, he allocated more than €3 million six months ago specifically for the expansion of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence services. Cuan disbursed this funding to 67 organisations working in this sphere on foot of a rigorous assessment process. I fully understand and appreciate the importance of these organisations that work across the country. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is appropriate to include reference to them in the legislation.”
“2 specifies that the court must be satisfied that: (a) the consent of the victim is freely and voluntarily given, (b) the victim has been provided with sufficient information and access to appropriate supports, including from specialist domestic violence services, to enable informed and safe decision-making, and (c) such consent may be withdrawn at any time prior to the inclusion of the judgment in the Register. Amendment No. 1 is a consequential amendment to ensure that the substance of amendment No. 2 is incorporated into section 2(d). While I have some reservations about the drafting, I want to focus in the first instance on the substance of the amendments. As the Senator outlined, specialist domestic violence services play a crucial role in providing support, assistance and help to victims.”
“This legislation will provide people with important information in relation to their safety. Abusers thrive on secrecy and shame. However, it is a fundamental principle of our legal system that justice is to be done in public. This register will contribute to ensuring that criminal convictions for these heinous crimes are appropriately published. I look forward to today's debate. I thank Senator Tully for submitting amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and for her contribution on them. However, I regret that I cannot accept them. Amendment No.”
“The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and I thank everyone for their consideration of the Bill. I welcome to the Seanad Chamber Jason Poole whom I had the honour of meeting today. On Second Stage the background to the Bill - its genesis in the brutal and senseless murder of an innocent young woman - was outlined by all. Senators of all parties and none praised the Poole family for their tireless campaign on behalf of their beloved Jennifer. I take this opportunity to reiterate that those with serious criminal convictions for domestic violence offences should not be able to escape the consequences of their behaviour. Those in relationships or considering entering into relationships with convicted offenders deserve to know about their past. They are entitled to make informed decisions about their personal lives.”
“Queries related to their work should be directed to the relevant partnership office. Retaining these measures in respect of the most serious crimes associated with terrorism and organised crime ensures that justice can be served and is free any attempts to thwart the criminal justice process. At its heart, this debate is about protecting the public, supporting the rule of law and ensuring that those who seek to undermine our democracy and our communities are met with a firm and effective response from the State. I commend the motions to the House.”