Chris Andrews
Labour Panel · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I want to move an amendment to No. 1 on the Order Paper, proposing an orderly winding down of the accommodation recognition payment scheme in a way that is fair and efficient. I note today is the last day of Dáil and Seanad sittings before the summer recess.”
“The Government can point to housing and claim that there are huge successes. There is only success for the wealthy, the well-off, the developers and the landlords. They are all delighted with Government policy.”
“Government will say, "Look at the positives", but there are a huge amount of challenges. You need not look any further than the housing crisis. Of course, the Government will point to an increased number of housing developments. However, those housing developments are for the very well-off.”
“We supported the development of housing on the Glass Bottle site. We worked hard to ensure to get more social housing. Unfortunately, the Government would not do that. Now it seems that the so-called "affordable housing" on the Glass Bottle site will be unaffordable.”
“I move amendment No. 14: In page 7, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “Annual report 11. The Minister shall, within the first six months of the year, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report outlining the application of this Act, providing an update on— (a) how many successful actions were brought under section 14…”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 4, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “ “settlement service” means a service provided in whole or in part within a postal code or relevant occupied territory to which this Act applies;”.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,016 lines we hold for Chris Andrews, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 21.
“I move amendment No. 21: In page 23, after line 34, to insert the following: “ Review of operation of section 19A of Criminal Evidence Act 1992 17. (1) The Minister shall, not later than 2 years after the coming into operation of section 16 , cause a review to be carried out of the operation of section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992. (2) A review under subsection (1) shall include an examination of— (a) the effectiveness of the provisions in protecting the privacy rights of complainants, (b) the extent to which applicable records are the subject of disclosure applications, (c) the impact of the provisions on the fairness of criminal proceedings, and (d) the operation in practice of the procedures introduced by section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, including timelines and procedural safeguards.”
“I move amendment No. 20: In page 23, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(g) by the insertion of the following after subsection (11): “(11A) Where an applicable record containing analysis, opinion or interpretation by the record-maker is adduced in evidence in proceedings before a jury, the court shall give a warning to the jury outlining the nature and limitations of such evidence, including that it may constitute a third-party interpretation and not a direct account of fact.”,”.”
“(7) No person shall directly or indirectly contact a record holder, a complainant, or any other person for the purpose of seeking, requesting, or encouraging the disclosure of a record to which subsection (3) applies. (8) A record holder shall not comply with any request, demand, or purported court order for the production or disclosure of a record to which subsection (3) applies. (9) A court shall not compel, direct, or invite the production or disclosure of a record to which subsection (3) applies. (10) Nothing in this section prevents a complainant from voluntarily disclosing their own counselling or therapeutic records to any person of their choosing, provided that such disclosure is not compelled, requested, or encouraged by any party to the proceedings.”
“(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), ‘counselling records or therapeutic records’ includes any record created in the course of, or for the purpose of, counselling, psychotherapy, psychological support, mental health treatment, or any related therapeutic service, whether provided by a professional, volunteer, or support organisation. (5) No person, including the accused, the prosecutor, or any other party, shall make an application to the court seeking the production, inspection, disclosure, or admission of any record to which subsection (3) applies. (6) Any purported application made in contravention of subsection (5) shall be void and shall not be accepted for filing or considered by the court.”
“(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no record that consists of, or includes, counselling records or therapeutic records relating to a complainant shall, in any circumstances, be— (a) sought, (b) inspected, (c) produced to a court, (d) disclosed to the accused, the prosecutor, or any other party, or (e) admitted in evidence, in any proceedings for a sexual offence, save that nothing in this subsection prevents a complainant from voluntarily disclosing their own counselling or therapeutic records to any person of their choosing.”
“(2) For the purposes of any criminal proceedings in respect of a sexual offence, counselling records shall be deemed to be hearsay evidence, and any statement contained in such records shall be treated as an out of court statement tendered for the truth of its contents, regardless of— (a) the form of the record, (b) whether the statement is verbatim or summarised, or (c) whether the statement is expressed as fact, opinion, or impression.”
“(1) In this section— ‘competent person’ means a person who has undertaken training or study, or has experience, relevant to the process of counselling; ‘counselling’ means listening to and giving verbal or other support or encouragement to a person, or advising or providing therapy or other treatment to a person (whether or not for remuneration); ‘counselling record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means by a competent person in connection with the provision of counselling to a person in respect of whom a sexual offence is alleged to have been committed (‘the complainant’); ‘court’ means the Circuit Criminal Court or the Central Criminal Court; ‘sexual offence’ means an offence referred to in the Schedule to the Sex Offenders Act 2001.”
“I move amendment No. 17: In page 19, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: Amendment of section 19A of Criminal Evidence Act 1992 16. The Criminal Evidence Act 1992 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 19A: “19A.”
“The lack of community gardaí and the failure to divert young people from crime are real problems that must be dealt with. Those failures have allowed young people to become vulnerable to being preyed upon by those involved in organised crime from a young age. It is young people in communities failed by the Government and experiencing deprivation who are most vulnerable to being targeted by these criminal gangs, including as drug runners for drug traffickers. We need enough gardaí to police our streets, but we also need to see investment in communities in diversion and youth facilities, as well as tackling wealth inequality and poverty.”
“In Sinn Féin's submission to the independent review, we called for the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in relation to the protection of jurors to be implemented, and for the practices of other jurisdictions to be thoroughly examined with a view to adopting best practice in line with international standards to protect jurors. The independent review group to examine the Offences Against the State Acts has called for this to be done and there is no reason whatsoever for further delay in doing so. Communities across the State are facing serious challenges relating to crime and antisocial behaviour, particularly in Dublin and its inner city. There are far too few gardaí to adequately police communities and, in particular, there is a lack of community gardaí and roads policing gardaí.”
“There is now widespread consensus that the laws drafted in the 1930s need to be updated. We need to ensure that An Garda Síochána and the courts have the resources and powers necessary to tackle organised crime and keep communities safe. The potential for jury intimidation remains the argument for non-jury courts, yet little has been done to protect jurors. The Law Reform Commission recommended in 2013 that the right of inspection of the jury panel, which may facilitate persons who wish to contact or identify jurors, should be restricted. It recommended the abolition of the daily roll-call of serving jurors in open court and the creation of a single offence of jury tampering.”
“Sinn Féin has called for the proposals of this report to be implemented and for legislation to be brought forward without further delay. Given the fact that the Government and the Minister continue to drag their feet on this issue, Sinn Féin will be bringing forward legislation in the Dáil to require the Government to act and to provide the Dáil with progress reports. Sinn Féin has argued that the legislation should stipulate that the courts, rather than the DPP, be provided with the power to decide on whether a non-jury trial should take place, as in the majority report. The legislation should also include a higher bar than recommended in the majority report for a non-jury trial. The legislation should include the requirement of evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place.”
“Sinn Féin welcomes the fact that the Government has finally come round to Sinn Féin's position that the offences against the State legislation should be overhauled. It is disappointing that three years after the publication of the review of the Offences Against the State Acts, the Government is once again renewing the existing provisions because it has been so slow in bringing forward new legislation to provide for the recommendations of that review. The independent review group, chaired by Mr. Justice Michael Peart, in its report published in 2023 recommended that the Offences Against the State Acts be abolished in their entirety, with a majority recommending that a new non-jury court replace the Special Criminal Court to try serious criminal offences for which a threshold is reached.”
“I move amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following: “: - resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2026 and ending on 29th June, 2027; and - calls on the Minister for Justice to bring forward legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review Group without further delay.”.”
“It is pro-Israel, pro-apartheid, pro-genocide and it is unacceptable to use the term "neutral", when clearly it is not a neutral act to allow and facilitate Israel playing in its country.”
“The Palestinian Football Association has made it very clear that it does not endorse Ireland playing Israel. It has confirmed that it has not issued any statement endorsing, approving or supporting the decision to proceed with this match, and that it will not be party to any effort to normalise or contribute to the sportswashing of crimes committed against the Palestinian people. The FAI is clearly trying to misrepresent the voices of Palestinian people as cover for their own spinelessness. There is a lot of commentary and a lot of it includes the word "neutral". The reality is that the FAI says that it is going to play in a neutral venue and commentators use that word "neutral". Any country that hosts Israel in football is not a neutral venue. It is facilitating sportswashing and genocide. Hungary is not a neutral venue.”
“The vast majority of sportspeople and sporting communities absolutely disagree with it going ahead. This game needs to be stopped. If it had gone ahead here, there would have been huge anger facing the Israeli team and the FAI. The FAI had a chance to stand up for the footballing community, not just in Ireland but across the world, along with young children in the Gaza Strip who have been shot in the legs to stop them playing. There have been targeted attacks on them. The Israelis have turned sports facilities into graveyards and killing fields as a deliberate tactic. The FAI made this decision to take the easy way out and avoid looking the Irish people in the eye. Even more shameful than that cowardice is the FAI's deliberately deceptive attempt to warp reality and pretend that this move is an example of its solidarity with Palestine.”
“I echo Senator Fitzpatrick's good wishes to the Pride community. Happy Pride to everyone; it is going to be a great celebration. I raise again the FAI's shameful intention to support apartheid Israel’s sportswashing. It recently announced that its upcoming fixture with genocidal Israel will be played at a venue abroad instead of at the Aviva Stadium. Using some bizarre, twisted logic, the FAI has tried to make this out to be some sort of concession to appease pro-human rights and pro-Palestinian activists, as if playing Netanyahu's fascist state behind closed doors in Hungary somehow makes this sordid affair morally better. In reality, this is a cynical move intended to prevent the hassle of the protests in Dublin which would no doubt meet the Israeli team. The vast majority of Irish people are opposed to this game going ahead.”
“I just do not see this going anywhere under this Government. It is important. Senator McDowell said that neither local authorities nor elected representatives have the power. This would give power to elected members if it was implemented as proposed. That would be welcome. It is important that such a scheme would be introduced. We support the motion but we have reservations that the proposed levy should not target those who are travelling within the country and those who are not tourists, in particular people attending hospital visits, such as a person up from Kerry visiting the children's hospital. If they are staying in a hotel, they should not have to pay that tax. It should only apply to those with a residency outside of Ireland to ensure Irish people are not penalised for travelling for treatment and to encourage staycations.”
“I would like to think that the Government Senators will go down to their parliamentary party meeting and convince the relevant Ministers to introduce it. I remember being on Dublin City Council eight or nine years ago where I heard Government councillors talking about this then. Why is it taking this long? I heard the Ministers, Deputies Chambers and Browne, saying they are open to the idea of this proposal. It is all very well to say they are open to ideas like this. We believe it is a good idea. Others differ. However, Ministers are saying they are open to considering it and making amendments. That is a long way from implementing it. As I said, when I was on Dublin City Council we used to hear councillors regularly talking about how important it is. Ten years later, we are still waiting. Forgive me for being sceptical.”
“There is going to be overcrowding because there are not enough houses being built. There are 18,000 people on the homeless lists. It is really frustrating for residents that they are paying significantly higher rents without seeing any benefit for it while the local authority and the Government can arrange to fund the redevelopment of Camden Yard and the council offices. Some would say that is not necessary. Senator McDowell made the point that it was not proven that that was required. It is really hard for residents to understand why they are being expected to live in substandard conditions for decades - for generations - when the money can be found overnight to refurbish civic offices at Camden Yard. I wanted to make that point. That said, I thank the Government Senators for submitting this motion. It is a motion we support.”
“Residents in the flat complexes in social housing feel that they are paying the price for the redevelopment of Camden Yard and the civic offices in the form of increased rent. The Minister would not believe how many people are really struggling with the increase in rents. Some have to pay an increase of up to 25%. It is hard to believe that the biggest landlord in the country can put up its rent by 25%. A private landlord would rightly not be allowed to do that. The residents are not getting anything for it either. They see no improvement in their living conditions. In fact, the regeneration plan for Pearse House was watered down to just a deep retrofit. This means that the flats are not going to increase in size. Neither the bedroom nor bathroom sizes are going to increase.”
“I thank the Minister for attending. I agree with Senator McDowell's comments on the civic offices in Camden Yard. He made a number of various points on it, and all were very fair. I have a real concern about the way the funding was put in place for all of that. It felt like it was overnight, but as I have said before and will continue to say, funding for the redevelopment of flat complexes around the city has not been as quick to be found. Pearse House is one example. It is disappointing that the Minister has not met the residents in the Pearse House group, who have done huge work over many years. Nearly €500 million for the civic offices was found overnight, yet residents have had to fight tooth and nail to get the flats brought up to any sort of standard.”
“There are nearly 18,000 homeless people in this State, and that number is increasing every single month. It is shameful. We need the Minister to come to the House and explain how he is going to change policy in order to make a difference to people's lives and end homelessness.”
“This is an acknowledgement of failure by the Government, yet there is no sense that there will be any change to the plan and process. In many ways, it is normalising failure around housing and effectively throwing in the towel. When you think about it, there are 18,000 people on the homeless list in what is a wealthy country. That is shameful, and we need to do better. How many times have Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael claimed that they will solve the housing crisis? The Minister has effectively thrown in the towel and acknowledged that he will not be able to solve the housing crisis. How many times have Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael housing Ministers stood up and said that they will make progress on ending homelessness and bring down housing waiting lists?”
“I agree with the comments on the Committee on Drugs Use's report. I acknowledge the work that everyone has done on that. As Senator Black said, Senator Ruane's fingerprints are all over it, and it is the better for that. It is important to ensure that we have a health-led drugs policy. On Monday, the housing Minister, Deputy Browne, made particularly bleak commentary on the housing issue. He said he had no idea when homeless numbers might finally begin to fall. He also said that he did not know if the Government's housing policies were doing anything to get people out of homelessness. That was a pretty bleak statement to make. He also admitted that the number of people was still increasing and, at best, would only stagnate in the near future rather than decrease.”
“It does not give them any sense of closure. As I say, they have had radio silence from the coroner's office and that just is not acceptable. The family and Gary were failed by the mental health system and now they are being failed, once again, by the coroner's office. Clearly, the coroner's office is not fit for purpose. To wait three years for an inquest seems completely unacceptable. The family need answers. They need some sort of peace and closure. I ask that the Minister come in here to explain how he plans to address the crisis in the coroner’s office. It is very unfair on families, not just families like Gary’s, but families across the country.”
“I congratulate the Leader. For the last couple of weeks, we were not able to do that from this side of House. It was not going to help him or anything. I really wish the Leader well. Obviously, we have our political differences but we have a lot of shared interests. I wish the Leader and his family well. It is a great honour for Senator Ahearn and I know that he has the qualities that are needed to maintain this role. In 2023, Gary Ward, a young man, died by suicide. That is three years ago. Last March, I raised his case. He had a lot of mental health issues. He was a loving son. He studied politics in UCD and he was failed by the mental health system. Three years later, the family still have no sight of the inquest. The coroner has literally blanked the family. Obviously, this is very distressing for the family.”
“Since the illegal and criminal US military actions in Venezuela, we have seen an escalation of aggression towards Cuba and it is not unlikely that this country will be next targeted by Trump. Some will claim the US won in Venezuela. That is debatable. It has clearly lost in Iran and now Trump will be setting his sights on a new target, which is likely to be Cuba. In particular, the Trump regime has been trying to deprive Cuba of its energy supply by trying to force Mexico and other countries to stop perfectly legitimate bilateral trade with Cuba. It has also been propagating false propaganda narratives that Cuba somehow poses a threat to the United States as a clear means of justifying a future war. For anybody who knows anything about geopolitics, that is clearly not true.”
“The blockade has resulted in severe shortages of food, medicine, and other necessities. It is having a dire impact on ordinary Cuban citizens. This is nothing new, as the Cuban people have been enduring this situation for more than 60 years, but those in power in the United States are clearly trying to put maximum economic pressure on Cuba to try to force regime change. This blockade has been repeatedly condemned by the UN General Assembly, which votes practically every year to call on the United States to end its blockade. Despite this, American policy is going in the other direction and Trump, Rubio and their acolytes have been trying to bully other sovereign states to stop their trade with Cuba. It is just another example of the terminal decline of international law and institutions.”
“I agree with my colleague, Senator Collins. It is right that the three-day rule is hopefully going to be got rid of because it is about choice and respect for women. If I went to a doctor and the doctor told me that I had to think about it for three days, I would find that really patronising. As I do not think it would happen to a man, I do not think it should happen to women either in terms of healthcare. Cuba is facing an extraordinarily difficult economic situation as a result of the illegal trade blockade imposed by the Trump regime. Sinn Féin activists and representatives and the Cuba Solidarity Forum Ireland have donated and organised containers of medical supplies for Cuba to help alleviate some of the most severe effects of this blockade. I thank everyone who contributed to this important cause.”
“It is open to criminality and corruption as it currently stands and we need to clamp down. Has the Minister considered addressing the issues with websites such as dogs.ie , which are facilitating puppy farms and facilitating the deplorable conditions dogs are being kept in day in and day out?”
“This legislation is very important and welcome. However, without a cap it will undo everything positive. It will legitimise and entrench puppy farms. It will be really disappointing if there is not a cap on that. What legal reasons are given for not including a cap? Is there a timeframe in which legislation will be drafted and brought before the Oireachtas because it can go on for quite a while? Did the public consultation responses or the dog control stakeholder groups suggest including a cap? If they did, why was it ignored? What were the legal reasons for ignoring it if they suggested putting a cap in place? A cap is critical to this. The Minister mentioned 20 breeding female dogs on a site. That is just not right. Animal welfare cannot be done properly with 20 breeding females on one site.”
“Most puppies are sold through a website called dogs.ie . DoneDeal and Gumtree stopped selling them, as did most online sales platforms. Some 25,770 dogs and puppies were advertised on dogs.ie last year and every puppy farmer in Ireland trades on that site. The site facilitates puppy farms and it may be legal but I believe it should not be because it facilitates the puppy farms. If you use dogs.ie to buy a dog you can be 99.9% you are buying a puppy farm dog. It is something we need to address within legislation because clearly the facilitation by dogs.ie of puppy farms is not acceptable and we have to do something about it. We must ensure there is a cap and that any legislation that is put in place is effective, enforced and ensures animal welfare and dog welfare is prioritised.”
“We are increasingly aware of the serious welfare and behavioural issues experienced by pups bred in these environments. Welfare cannot meaningfully be regulated at these scales, regardless of how robust the legislative language is on paper. Without a significantly low cap on breeding females, these reforms risking being entirely ineffective. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify this issue and state whether the Government intends to put in a meaningful cap on the number of breeding females and therefore the scale of breeding establishments. I would also be very grateful if the Minister would clarify whether the public consultation responses or the dog control stakeholder group suggested including a cap and if so, why these recommendations were ignored. I mentioned we are the puppy farm capital of Europe.”
“Without such a cap Ireland risks continuing its long-standing international reputation for industrial-scale puppy farms. Once again, we appear to be legislating in a way that accommodates and legitimises industrial-scale breeding operations rather than phasing them out and clamping down on them. There is no place in a modern animal welfare framework for puppy farms and any meaningful amendment of the Dog Breeding Establishments Act should begin the work of dismantling this model rather than entrenching it. We currently have multiple licensed dog breeding establishments authorised to keep hundreds of breeding females. These figures do not even include the pups or stud dogs. These breeding females do not have lives worth living. There is also very little transparency regarding the lives and treatment of stud dogs.”
“I thank the Minister for coming in. I welcome that the Department of agriculture has published a draft general scheme of a Bill to amend the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010. Ireland is the puppy farm capital of Europe and this is obviously nothing to be proud of. Nearly six years since policy change in this area was first considered by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, this is the first meaningful legislative contribution that has been made. The Bill is intended to introduce long-awaited measures regarding breeding practices, sales regulations and enforcement powers. That is very welcome. The most significant oversight though is the complete absence of a cap on the number of breeding females permitted within a dog breeding establishment.”
“It is not opposing it, but is it supporting it? There is a difference. I hope the Government will remain committed to protecting Irish neutrality and our ability to be a positive force for peace on the international stage.”
“The current Secretary-General reiterated this in 2023 and called on member states to each adopt, by 2026, a legally binding instrument to prohibit lethal autonomous weapon systems that function without human control or oversight, which cannot be used in compliance with international humanitarian law, and to regulate all other types of autonomous weapon systems. Enacting this Bill would be a step towards this objective and would give further credibility to Ireland's calls for the prohibition of these weapons systems internationally. We are living in an exceptionally dangerous and unstable world. That makes our position as a militarily neutral country all the more important both for our own security and as a means of promoting disarmament and peace abroad. I hope that the Government will support this legislation.”
“There is a very real risk that this will become the new arms race with every major military power pouring resources into producing the most lethal and powerful AI weaponry possible, free from any human notions of morality or compassion. A future in which wars are waged by artificial intelligence is no longer just science fiction. It is a terrifying prospect. It is worth noting that Ireland has already taken very positive steps in calling for the regulation of these weapons at an international level and has supported these efforts within the United Nations. Since 2018, the UN has maintained that lethal autonomous weapons systems are politically unacceptable and morally repugnant, and has called for their prohibition under international law. That is why we need to lead by example. We can do it.”
“There is only a computer programme to kill in the most efficient way it is able to do. It completely separates warfare from basic humanity and morality, making it essentially impossible for individuals to be held to account for lethal actions from these weapons. I do not see how anyone could be happy for these sorts of weapons to be used in future wars but, unfortunately, power and money, and the big powers, are investing in that technology. It is depressing in many ways when you think about it. The United States, China, Russia and, no doubt, other countries are developing AI-powered weaponry with advanced killer robot autonomous drones already being deployed in Ukraine.”
“Likewise, we were key to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, as well as the anti-personnel landmines convention not too long ago. Leading the way on the prohibition of lethal autonomous weapons is a meaningful way that we can add to this legacy in the modern day. That can be helped on its way with this common-sense legislation. Much like landmines and cluster munitions, lethal autonomous weapon systems pose an inherent and unnecessary risk to non-combatants and are completely contrary to accepted values, human rights and international law. We have seen the devastation that they inflict in Lebanon and Gaza. It is horrendous. There is no soldier present to distinguish between civilians and enemies and there is no officer providing oversight or taking responsibility.”
“Like Senator O'Loughlin, this is my first opportunity to wish the Minister of State well on her elevation. I wish her the very best. It is a great opportunity for her. It is a great moment for her and I wish her well. I thank Senator Higgins for introducing the Bill, which we support completely. I would be concerned if anyone were to oppose it and it is welcome that the Government is not opposing it. Like Senator Clonan, I think it is something we should introduce at a national level to set an example and send out a message that we are going to do our part. We should be very proud of Ireland's record when it comes to promoting disarmament and non-proliferation of immoral and unnecessarily brutal weapons. Ireland was central to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and led the way early on when it came to nuclear disarmament.”
“I move amendment No. 10: In page 22, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “Expedited High Court Review 26. (1) A journalist or publisher affected by a warrant or order under this Act may apply to the High Court for an expedited review of the decision. (2) The High Court shall determine such applications as soon as practicable, having regard to the importance of protecting journalistic sources.”.”
“Amendment No. 9 relates to safeguards for retention, access and use of digital data. The amendment introduces essential safeguards for how gardaí retain and handle digital data seized under warrant. The amendment ensures data is kept only for the minimum time necessary, securely deleted when irrelevant and protected through strict access controls, encryption and audit logs. It requires periodic reviews to confirm ongoing necessity and prevent mission creep. Crucially, the data will only be used for the specific investigation named in the warrant unless a High Court judge authorises any broader use. Where third party information is involved additional judicial approval and strict proportionality apply. Overall these safeguards reinforce constitutional and human rights standards in the digital search context.”
“(4) Digital data obtained under this Act shall not be used for any purpose other than the investigation of the offence specified in the warrant, unless authorised by a further warrant issued by a judge of the High Court. (5) Where digital data includes information relating to third parties not suspected of any offence, such information shall not be examined, retained or used except where strictly necessary and proportionate and expressly authorised by a judge. (6) Nothing in this section shall be construed as permitting the retention or use of digital data in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”.”
“I move amendment No. 9: In page 19, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “Safeguards for Retention, Access and Use of Digital Data 24. (1) Any digital data seized, captured or otherwise obtained under a search warrant issued pursuant to this Act shall be retained only for the minimum period strictly necessary for the investigation of the offence to which the warrant relates. (2) Digital data that is not, or is no longer, relevant to the investigation or prosecution of an offence shall be securely deleted without delay. (3) The Garda Commissioner shall ensure that all digital data retained under this Act is subject to: (a) strict access controls; (b) comprehensive audit logging; (c) encryption at rest and in transit; and (d) periodic review to confirm ongoing necessity and proportionality.”
“I move amendment No. 8: In page 17, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “Protection of Journalistic Sources 21. (1) A journalist or publisher shall not be required to disclose the identity of a confidential source except by order of a court. (2) A court shall only make such an order where— (a) it is strictly necessary and proportionate for the administration of justice, and (b) the public interest in disclosure substantially outweighs the public interest in the protection of journalistic sources. (3) In determining an application under this section, the court shall have regard to— (a) Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution, (b) the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and (c) relevant domestic case law.”.”
“Amendment No. 7 ensures the District Court can assess whether journalistic privilege applies before granting a search warrant. It requires the court to refuse any application unless strict safeguards are met protecting press freedom and preventing disproportionate intrusion into journalists’ work.”
“I move amendment No.7: In page 16, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “(2) Where a journalist or publisher asserts journalistic privilege in respect of material stored on an electronic device, no requirement to provide access credentials shall apply until a court has determined whether the privilege applies.”.”