Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 84.
“These are factors that will add greater protection to individuals in terms of extending the breadth of the right to privacy. In subsection 6(f) of the section, I have put in place a presumption of non-disclosure. That is how the Attorney General and others have described it to me. It is categorised as a presumption of non-disclosure because it states that: "[A] court shall not, after the hearing referred to in subsection (8), order disclosure of the content of the applicable record concerned to the accused, and where applicable, the prosecutor, unless the court is satisfied" and then sets out some requirements that I will come to.”
“If I ignore that, I would be walking us all into a legislative and judicial minefield because it is a right that is set out in our Constitution. It is provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights and it is recognised in the EU Charter. The right to a fair trial has to be given some recognition by people in the Houses of the Oireachtas when we try to formulate a solution to this. Section 16 of the miscellaneous provisions Bill sets out a very detailed statutory regime. The one abiding characteristic is that it transfers and moves the balance of those two rights very much in favour of the right to privacy. It does that in a number of ways. First, it is important to point out that I am broadening it from counselling notes to include all personal records.”
“On the one hand, there is a right that we have all spoken about and that I want to give priority to, namely the right to privacy of the women and men who go to counselling and have notes generated for the purposes of recording the issues they have identified in the confidential environment of the counselling room. That is a right to privacy that must be respected. It is not an absolute right to privacy. There are no absolute rights in our constitutional framework. The right to life is not an absolute right because self-defence permits one to deny it. There is the right to privacy on the one hand, and on the other there is the right to a fair trial. I am not criticising people for not mentioning that, but I cannot ignore that.”
“If that happens, and if the courts adjudicate that the legislation the Houses of the Oireachtas introduced and enacted is unconstitutional, that would be a devastating consequence for people who are complainants or survivors of sexual assault and rape. I am not prepared, just for the sake of my own political convenience and so that it will reflect well on me, to turn around and agree to ban counselling notes notwithstanding what the Attorney General said. I simply cannot do that. It is not an issue that people who are not lawyers need legal advice on, because when it comes to this issue there are two rights at stake.”
“Sometimes one receives advice from lawyers, and it is grey and they say, "On the one hand, on the other hand". The advice I have received, which is obviously advice that the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has received, is that a ban on counselling notes will be adjudicated as unconstitutional. We need to look to see what impact that would have on survivors and complainants before our courts. If I introduced the amendment suggested by Sinn Féin or that advocated by Senator Higgins, we would find ourselves in a situation relatively quickly whereby a person who has been charged and convicted of rape or sexual assault would challenge the legislation on the basis that they had been denied access to a category of evidence they say contained probative evidence that could have been of use in getting an acquittal for them in the proceedings.”
“The amendments before the House are different, in many respects. The Sinn Féin amendment and the amendment proposed by Senator Higgins adamantly suggest that there has to be a ban on counselling notes, whereas Senator Harmon and the Labour Party's amendment do not adopt that position but instead propose a different mechanism to the mechanism I have put forward. It is important to acknowledge that there is a broad difference of views. I am not standing on my own saying I am the person who says we cannot ban counselling notes. It is recognised by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre that we cannot ban counselling notes. It is recognised by the Labour Party that we cannot ban counselling notes. The advice I have received from the Attorney General is unambiguous on this.”
“Both the Dáil and the Seanad had debates on it. The law was changed and we thought we had resolved the issue of counselling notes being routinely handed over to the defence in sexual assault or rape trials and used in cross-examination. When we saw what happened after 2017, there was a recognition that, notwithstanding the considerable efforts that have been made by the Oireachtas, the measures we introduced in 2017 did not work. That statutory regime is the regime that is in place at present. That is why we must all accept that that regime in statute is unacceptable. We have since had a judgment of the Supreme Court in the AM case, which has slightly alleviated the circumstances. I am still convinced that we need to change the legislative scheme that operates. Everyone in this House agrees in respect of that.”
“I thank Senators for the amendments they have put forward and for their contributions. I will start by saying that I understand and acknowledge the depth of feeling that exists on this issue. I have heard it not just on Committee Stage in the Dáil and here and on other Stages. I have heard it from people who have come before me and I am fully aware of the legitimate intensity of feeling that people have in respect of this issue. I wanted to say that at the outset. The more I listen to people, the more I appreciate that intensity, so I have no difficulty in hearing people refer to this on a number of occasions. There is something I think there is agreement on. The current statutory regime is unacceptable. I was a Member of the House back in 2017 when this was a real issue of concern and we changed the law.”
“All we can do is try to set out in legislation what the range of sentences should be. As I said earlier, it does not always have to be a custodial sentence. What is being done here is, we are not saying to judges that they cannot put a person who is convicted of an offence with a penalty of up to two years in prison. We are simply stating that in that instance, consideration must be given to a community service order. It means 480 hours or up to 480 hours of community service by the offender if the judge goes for that option but I cannot accept the amendments.”
“There is undoubtedly merit in consideration being given to the matters specified in the amendment but these are already matters to which any judge would be expected to give consideration when considering sentence. Moreover, as legislators we must have in mine the separation of powers and the independent of the Judiciary. I do not think it would be appropriate to prescribe or delimit the court's consideration in such a way. It is also the case that every convicted person's case must be considered on its own merits and those referenced in the amendment may not always be the most pertinent considerations in a given case. I fully accept that sentencing is a complex and complicated issue. It is very difficult for us to second-guess a judge who has heard all of the evidence and will know all of the circumstances of the offence and the offender.”
“They are factors where there is not a threat to the safety of a person. Every case that results in a community service order will help to free up prison spaces for offenders who generally warrant imprisonment. As I mentioned earlier, we are increasing the capacity within our prisons but also this is another factor and provision that will assist in making prisons more appropriate for accommodating the people who are there. There are many cases where the court will still determine that a custodial sentence is appropriate and, as acknowledged by Senator O'Reilly, it is for judges to make that determination. Amendment No. 15 also proposes to set out the matters the court is to have regard to when considering a community service order.”
“Other than that, there are circumstances in each case which need to be taken into account by judges in terms of not just the liability of the offender and the nature of the offence; but also the offender him or herself and the extent to which this is a first time offence, the extent to which it was out of character with what has happened previously in the person's life and the extent to which the person is an ongoing threat to the community. It is very hard to prescribe then within legislation. However, there are many offences with penalties of up to 24 months' imprisonment where the offender poses no risk to the community and where the public interest may be better served by a person undertaking community service rather than being in prison. That can arise in terms of serious theft or fraud offences.”
“Similarly, I am doubling the amount of community service hours that will be put in place from 240 to 480 hours. Sentencing is one of the most complex functions a trial judge has. It requires the court to take into account a whole variety of factors. Generally, we do not prescribe actual specific sentences for offences except in the case of murder where there is a mandatory life sentence, and I think that is appropriate.”
“I thank Senator O'Reilly for her amendment and contribution. We are dealing with section 15 of the Bill, which deals with a proposed amendment I am making to the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983. We had a good discussion earlier about the use of incarceration and prison as a penalty for violation of the criminal law. In many respects the proposal I am putting in section 15 complements that and is reflective of a desire for courts to recognise there are other options available for the purpose of granting community service orders. At present, it is limited to where there is a sentence of up to 12 months' imprisonment. What I am proposing in section 15 is that it would be extended to where you have to consider a sentence which has a potential penalty of up to 24 months' imprisonment.”
“The convention allows for a remand period of up to 40 days, and in this context, the increase to 28 days I am proposing is reasonable and proportionate in the interests of a well-functioning extradition system. I note also that there is no legal bar to the making of a bail application by a person who has been provisionally arrested, either at their first court appearance or thereafter. For those reasons I cannot accept the amendment put forward by Senator Black.”
“Doing so will ensure that where a person has been remanded on foot of a provisional arrest without warrant, there is sufficient time for the formalisation and processing of extradition requests from Switzerland and Liechtenstein, but also from other countries, such as the United States, which can be very difficult to finalise within the 18-day period for procedural reasons beyond the control of the Chief State Solicitor’s Office and, indeed, the central authority in my Department. It should be noted that the European Convention on Extradition refers to 18 days after provisional arrest as a minimum remand period. I am unsure as to why the Legislature chose this as the maximum period under the 1965 Act, but I am satisfied it is no longer fit for purpose.”
“Paragraph (d) substitutes section 27(7) of the 1965 Act to provide that if, within 28 days of a person's provisional arrest, no ministerial certificate is produced confirming that an extradition request has been made, the person shall be released from custody or from the terms of his or her bail. The existing provision in the legislation provides for a remand period of 18 days. The effect of Senator Black's amendment would be simply to leave the 18 days in place. I want to change it to 28 days for the following reason, and I think it is a considered and balanced change. The proposal arises from advice my Department received from the Chief State Solicitor's Office that if the Bill's other amendments to the Extradition Act are to operate as intended, the current 18-day maximum remand period should be increased to 28 days.”
“I thank Senator Black for moving this amendment and for her contribution. It is the case that a miscellaneous provisions Bill is a very useful legal instrument for the purpose of trying to make varying changes to different laws, and you can get it done on a pretty fast and expedited basis. I do not make any apology for the fact that that is what I am seeking to do. I have had very significant engagement with the Houses of the Oireachtas in respect to this legislation, in particular with the Seanad. I believe that the Bill, quite correctly, has been subject to the scrutiny it deserves, as is the case with all legislation. Amendment No. 14 from Senator Black is an amendment proposed to section 12, which proposes an amendment to section 27 of the Extradition Act of 1965. Senator Black's amendment proposes to delete section 12(d) of the Bill.”
“I will be brief because I am conscious that there are other amendments. It is instructive to note that there is a report laid before this House every year which sets out detail about that. No one ever talks about it or raises it. The information is provided there. As the information was provided in the past, it will continue to be provided in the future. There must be recognition that the amendments that have been set down would be grossly inappropriate, considering the nature of the requests that are going in from the Garda to the Defence Forces. There should be a close working relationship between both when it comes to areas of expertise or functionality that the other cannot perform, and when assistance is required.”
“As I have already noted, statistical information in relation to the deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of civil power is already provided on an annual basis in the annual report of the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces, which is laid before this House. As such, I do not consider that the amendment proposed by Senators is required. In addition, the reporting requirements set out in the amendment also relate to operational matters relating to the Defence Forces, and it would not be appropriate on security grounds to report on such matters. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment on those grounds.”
“Statistical information in relation to the deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power is provided on an annual basis in the annual report of the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. The report is laid before this House - the Seanad - as well as the Dáil. It clearly sets out the wide range of operations that take place in aid of the civil power. It should also be noted that the requirement for the deployment of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power often rises at short notice. Therefore, it would not be feasible to provide that a resolution of both Houses would be required before deployment. For those reasons, I cannot accept amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 13 provides for reporting requirements for the operation of the new Part 3A of the Defence Act 1954.”
“Similarly, if there was an explosive device found somewhere down the country and An Garda Síochána needed to call in the explosives section of the Defence Forces in order to defuse it, are we seriously suggesting that there has to be a motion brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas requiring that a resolution be passed to permit it? That provision would be impractical and excessive in view of the nature and volume of the deployments. As I said to the Senator, there were 144 requests last year. Most of them did not give rise to any issues of concern and none of them really resulted in very visible presence of the Defence Forces on our streets, as was mooted by some Senators.”
“Can we just pause and think about that in the context of the assistance that was provided by the Defence Forces to An Garda Síochána in the search for the remains of Mike Gaine? Is it seriously suggested that when the gardaí down in south Kerry decided that they needed assistance to look for the unfortunate man's mortal remains that they would have had to hold on until they got a resolution signed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, which would have taken a week or so? Also, what expertise does this House have when it comes to assisting or directing An Garda Síochána as to what assistance it needs for the purpose of carrying out their functions?”
“In summary, the new section 40B does not provide for a substantive change to the current legislative framework under which members of the Defence Forces may be deployed in aid of the civil power. However, it is necessary as it ensures that provision is appropriately set out within the Defence Acts for this important role of the Defence Forces and, accordingly, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 11. That brings me to amendment No. 12, which relates to the provisions in Part 4 of the Bill concerning, again, the long-standing role of the Defence Forces in aid of civil power. This amendment would appear to require that any deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power would require a resolution to be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.”
“It is acknowledged that the regulations that have been in existence for almost 60 years are in need of modernisation, and the provisions relating to the use of force that are currently set out in the regulations are more appropriately situated within the relevant primary legislation that is the Defence Act 1954. It should also be pointed that the approval of the Government to draft an amendment to the Defence Acts was obtained on 9 March 2026, way before the protests that occurred. It was suggested by Senator McCormack that this amendment was introduced out of the blue after the protests. That is not correct. The approval of the Governments was obtained on 9 March 2026, and the relevant draft head was published on the website of the Department of Defence in March 2026.”
“In addition, other enactments provide for the manner in which members of the Defence Forces provide assistance to the Garda and other State bodies in relation to specific matters. There are also regulations made under the Defence Act 1954 in relation to the provision of aid to the civil power. The regulations in question are entitled Defence Forces Regulation CS1 (Employment of Troops in Aid of the Civil Power 1967). It should also be noted that there is case law to support the current provisions relating to aid of the civil power.”
“As I announced earlier this year, An Garda Síochána requested the Defence Forces to come in to provide assistance to remove large trucks. This is the type of request that is standard and acceptable. I agree with Senator McDowell that it is not something that requires a vote in both Houses of the Oireachtas before that can be granted. It is, however, probably worth setting out the current legislative framework relating to the aid of the civil power. There are relevant provisions relating to aid of civil power currently set within the Defence Act 1954, in regulations made under the Defence Act 1954 and in various other enactments. Section 90 of the 1954 Act provides for the calling out in certain circumstances of reservists in aid of the civil power.”
“An Garda Síochána frequently requests that. It also happened last year in respect of the death of the unfortunate Mike Gaine. As the Cathaoirleach will know, Mike Gaine was a farmer in south Kerry. There was an investigation on his land to look for his remains. An Garda Síochána requested the assistance of the Army for the purpose of that search and it was granted. That is an example of a perfectly legitimate and understandable request from An Garda Síochána to the Defence Forces under the C70 system. In fact, there were 144 requests from An Garda Síochána by way of C70s to the Defence Forces last year, so this is something that continues on a frequent basis. It does not result in armed officers of the Defence Forces being seen on the street, but it is something that is necessary and appropriate.”
“After many years, the Provisional IRA realised the futility of its campaign and organised criminals as well now recognise that trying to rob large amounts of cash is fruitless, particularly since that does not happen with the same frequency now. Nonetheless, it is still the case that An Garda Síochána requests the assistance of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power on a regular basis and that assistance is granted. An Garda Síochána issues what is referred to as a C70 document. It is a form that a chief superintendent or someone higher will issue to the Defence Forces in a region for the purpose of getting its assistance. It may arise in circumstances where there is concern about an explosive device. Great expertise exists within the Defence Forces in respect of explosive devices and ensuring that they are made safe.”
“Senator McDowell referred to the kidnapping of Don Tidey and, of course, the campaign of violence waged by the Provisional IRA on this island for a period of 25 or 30 years, which tragically resulted in the murder of Private Patrick Kelly, a member of Óglaigh na hÉireann, by the Provisional IRA. It is also important to point out that even back in the 1970s and 1980s, the Army provided assistance to An Garda Síochána and there was a mechanism by which that was done and I will refer to that presently. It continued during the times when we had serious organised crime. The Garda frequently requested the assistance of the Army and Defence Forces for the purpose of accompanying and guarding large transits of cash during the course of bank deliveries. Fortunately, that type of criminal activity has now ceased.”
“I thank the Senators for putting forward the amendments and all Senators for their contributions. Just so everyone is aware, we are discussing proposed amendments to section 9 of the Bill and that is the section that seeks to put in a new provision into the Defence Act 1954 to ensure that there is an updated statutory mechanism in respect of members of the Defence Forces being deployed in aid of the civil power. At the outset, it is important to be aware of, note and record that, at present, there is ongoing assistance provided by the Defence Forces to An Garda Síochána and that is something that has happened consistently over the past 40 or 50 years.”
“I should add that my officials are continuing to engage with the Attorney General's Office to ensure consistency of the proposals with EU communications legislation and I will advise Senators on Report Stage should any issues arise.”
“8 and 9 amend sections 12 and 12B of the 1926 Act to provide that the offences on the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus to interfere with such other apparatus do not apply to the use of radio frequency jammers by An Garda, for counter-drone activity. This is modelled on previous such amendments introduced to these sections in 2023 in respect of the Dublin Airport Authority. Amendment No. 34 is technical in nature and simply amends the Long Title of the Bill to reference the amendments to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926, as proposed in amendments Nos. 4 to 9, inclusive. I am satisfied that these amendments are necessary to ensure An Garda is in a position to carry out its policing and security functions and deal with the threats posed to our security by illicit and unlawful drone activity.”
“Under a separate statutory instrument made in 2011 under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1972, there is a general prohibition on the sale, hire, manufacture or importation of wireless telegraphy interference apparatus, which would include a radio frequency jammer. There is also a clear exemption in the order, which confirms that it does not apply to the importation or manufacture of such equipment by An Garda, the Defence Forces or the Prison Service. Therefore, at present, it is lawful for An Garda to manufacture or import a radio frequency jammer but the law contains inconsistency thereafter with regard to its use. Amendments Nos.”
“This would cover sharing of information on issues such as maintenance, frequencies used, standard operating procedures and instances of equipment use. It will ensure that An Garda is in a position to maintain the capability for the use of this equipment and avail of ComReg expertise, while ComReg will be informed of all relevant aspects of the use of this equipment. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are consequential in nature. At present, section 12 and section 12B of the 1926 Act provide for offences and monetary penalties for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus to interfere with other such apparatus, which will at present apply to An Garda if it used this equipment. This is one example of where the law in this area is not entirely consistent.”
“My concern with this position is that requiring An Garda to operate under licensing conditions set by another State body for the possession and use of equipment would not be appropriate as An Garda cannot cede its policing and security functions in this area to another State body that does not have such functions. However, this amendment needs to be read in conjunction with amendment No. 7. That amendment has been drawn up following extensive contact between officials from my Department, An Garda, the Department of Culture, Communications, and Sport and ComReg. This amendment inserts a new section, 3B into the 1926 Act which obliges An Garda and ComReg to agree a memorandum of understanding to support the sharing of information on the use of radio frequency jammers for counter-drone purposes.”
“6 I am proposing to amend section 3(6) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 to ensure that the general prohibition on the possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus without a licence from ComReg does not apply to a radio frequency jammer kept by An Garda Síochána for the purpose of working or using it in accordance with the proposed new section, 12(1B) and 12B(1B) of the 1926 Act. This refers to amendments Nos. 8 and 9. In plain language, it refers to An Garda using a radio frequency jammer to interfere with a drone where it is reasonably believed to be necessary to carry out its function under the 2024 Act. Under the current section 3(6) of the 1926 Act An Garda would require a licence from ComReg for the possession of a radio frequency jammer.”
“4 and 5 are technical in nature and simply deal with reference to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 and the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024. The 1926 Act is the legislation which sets out the current legal regime relating to wireless telegraphy, a term which includes a radio frequency jammer. The Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg, is the State's regulator in this space and it operates a licensing regime for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus. The 2024 Act is the overarching legislation which governs the operation of An Garda Síochána. With amendment No.”
“The relevant equipment can be used to detect the presence of a drone or can interfere with it to such an extent that the jammer sends it back to the pilot or makes it land in a safe drone zone. Depending on the equipment used, the effect of using a jammer could extend in a specific localised area beyond the specific radio frequency channels used by a drone to other frequencies to potentially impact other radio frequency users, such as mobile and radio networks and emergency call systems. For this reason, international communications standards suggest that the use of jamming equipment should generally be prohibited but without prejudice to the general need for an exemption to apply where the intended purpose is for security or defence purposes. Amendments Nos.”
“The growing risks and awareness of illicit drone activity from a security and defence perspective have also been identified at EU level in an action plan on drone and counter-drone security. I am advised that there is a need for legal amendments to confirm that the Garda has legal powers where necessary and proportionate to deal with dangerous or hostile drone activity through the use of what are called radio frequency jammers. This is particularly the case in the context of our forthcoming Presidency of the Council of the European Union. I am informed that radio frequency jammers can be used to provide a localised source of radio noise that is intended to disrupt wireless communications to illicit or dangerous drone activity.”
“These are essential measures to clarify the authority of the Garda to deploy radio frequency jammers to counter drones, or what are technically referred to as unmanned aircraft systems, where required as part of carrying out its statutory functions under the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024. I will briefly give Senators the background. Drones have increased significantly in prevalence and capability over the past decade. Improvements in accessibility, affordability and ease of operation have resulted in their widespread use. They also present distinct and evolving security risks. This may include threats to life or property, threats to public safety or State security, criminal activity, intimidation or harassment.”
“Now, these offences are prosecuted much more vigorously, including for historical offences, and this is going to result in more people being in prison. Indeed, this will mean more elderly people will be in prison. That is also a discussion we need to have at some stage. We also need to reflect on situations where it is the instinctive response of the Oireachtas to criminalise certain human activities, and then to impose a penal sanction along with it. We need to reflect on this aspect. Maybe we are criminalising too much human behaviour. I will not start naming proposals now, but there are some out there concerning banning certain things. Are these really things that we need to designate breaches of the criminal law, for which, necessarily, there may perhaps be criminal sanction?”
“Something like an incapacitant spray could be a more effective way of dealing with that kind of situation, in the unusual circumstances where the need to use it arises. Thornton Hall was mentioned by Senators O’Reilly and McDowell. They will know that money is allocated in the national development plan, in its latter part, for Thornton Hall. It is part of my plan, and that of the Government, to build a new prison at Thornton Hall. That is the proposal. We need to recognise that when it comes to the prison population, people are going to prison now who would not have done so 40 years ago. In some respects, that is a good thing. If we look at sexual offences, men got away with violence, rape and sexual assault years ago. There were no consequences.”
“We really need to look at ourselves as legislators when it comes to legislation. Do we always need to include a term of imprisonment as a penalty provision? It is hard for us to criticise judges who impose prison sentences when the Oireachtas has said that penalty is available to them. Senator Ruane also spoke about the training of prison officers. I was given an exhibition by prison officers down in Castlerea as to how they deal with the unusual but dangerous situation that can arise when there is a violent, aggressive prisoner. It is a very harrowing and difficult process to deal with. My view is that I thought, from my experience and knowledge, that the prison officers were very professionally trained and qualified to do so. It is an extremely difficult task.”
“I agree with Senator Ruane. I accept that the increase in population is not the only reason why there has been an increase in the prison population. However, it is not inconsistent of me to say that prison capacity should have kept in line with the population increase. The Senator is, of course, correct in recognising, as I do, that there are other reasons why our prison population has increased. First, new laws are being created. We are the people who make the new laws. We are the people who say whether or not a prison sentence is necessary. I am pleased to say that one of the new offences I am introducing under this Bill is sex for rent. When we look at this provision, we will notice that there is no possibility of a prison sentence being imposed for that offence. It is solely a fine.”
“That report is to be prepared by the Minister responsible for implementation 12 months after enactment and provides a review of the functioning of the Act to date. These reports are laid in the Oireachtas Library. The review the Senator proposes would, in practice, substantially duplicate the post-enactment report process that already applies to this Bill on commencement. Indeed, having this obligation in the Standing Orders rather than scattered across various pieces of legislation ensures consistency in the manner and timing of reviews of new legislation. For those reasons I do not consider a statutory review provision of the kind proposed as necessary. Therefore, I will not be accepting the amendment.”
“It proposes to insert a new section 6 into the Bill providing for a review of operation of the provisions relating to the possession, use and carriage of incapacitant spray. The review would be carried out by the Minister no later than 12 months after commencement and would examine the operation and practice of the provisions enabling prison officers to possess, use and carrying incapacitant spray. The measures to be considered in the review are set out in paragraphs (a) to (f). I share the objective of keeping legislation under review. However, Senators will be aware, and Senator McDowell and I discussed this recently, that under Dáil Standing Order 204 there must be a post-enactment report in respect of all Acts enacted. I believe there is a similar provision in the Seanad Standing Orders.”
“Rather, it removes what is currently an outright prohibition on prison officers possessing, using or carrying such sprays in the course of their duties. The Bill provides that such sprays will be permitted only in accordance with such further provisions as may be made by me under the prison rules. The use of such sprays will be further underpinned by mandatory policies and operating procedures and by bespoke training for prison officers to ensure that these devices are used appropriately and in line with all applicable health and safety and human rights considerations. The sprays will also be piloted in selected locations before any wider roll-out. Consequently, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 1, 2 or 3. I thank Senator O'Reilly for her amendment No. 10.”
“The evidence shows that such sprays do not cause long-term health effects and that, used appropriately, they can prevent or minimise incidents of serious prison violence and indeed reduce the need for more forceful and potentially injurious physical interventions by prison officers. Because of the professionalism of Irish prison officers, if this law is enacted I believe we will not see any significant change. We will not see prison officers reaching for pepper spray in an immediate response to a circumstance which otherwise they could resolve. It is important to point out what the Bill does and does not do in relation to incapacitant sprays. It does not authorise unconditional possession or deployment.”
“It is essential that prison officers are properly equipped to protect themselves, their colleagues and, of course, the prisoners in their care from serious and potentially lethal violence. To that end, I believe it is necessary for prison officers to be able to use incapacitant sprays in appropriate circumstances where the situation may demand it. It does not mean that once this law is enacted, or if this law is enacted, prison officers will start going around using incapacitant spray with reckless abandon. It is important to point out that Ireland is one of a tiny number of European states whose prison officers are not currently allowed to use this protection in any circumstances. The vast majority of other European jurisdictions have long since determined incapacitant spray to be an essential item in this regard.”