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 12 of 84.
“This application must be made where the agency has reasonable cause to believe that the convicted guardian has failed in his or her parental duty to such extent that the child’s safety or welfare is likely to be prejudicially affected. An order may be made by the court that will be suspended and take effect once an alternative arrangement is in place, either a care order under the 1991 Act or that another guardian is already in place. The court must consider both the failure of duty and the best interests of the child before making such an order. An order may either restrict the convicted guardian’s powers and duties or remove completely the convicted guardian from office as a guardian. The court may impose such conditions as it considers necessary in the best interests of the child.”
“Section 1 provides for the Short Title, collective citation and commencement of the Bill. Section 2 provides for definitions defining “the Act of 1964” as the Guardianship of Infants Act of that year and the “Act of 1991” as the Child Care Act of that year. Section 3 inserts a new Part IIA into the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. That part gives effect to the programme for Government commitment to remove or restrict guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partners or a parent of their child. The new part contains nine sections. The first of these, section 12B, defines terms that are used. Section 12C is the principal operative provision of the Bill. Tusla must apply to the District Court within six months of the conviction of a guardian for the murder or manslaughter of another guardian of the child.”
“The Bill will apply to both married and unmarried guardians. Children will have a voice in proceedings and the courts will ensure that the child’s best interests are balanced against the rights of a guardian who has failed in his or her duty towards that child by his or her horrific crime of killing that child’s other parent. Importantly, the provisions of this Bill will apply also to cases where one guardian killed another before the commencement of the legislation. This is an essential element to ensure that Tusla has the power, where it considers it necessary in the best interests of the child, to make an application to restrict or remove guardianship in the circumstances. The Guardianship of Infants and Child Care (Amendment) Bill contains six sections.”
“The role of Tusla in making these applications recognises its important role as the State agency with primary responsibility for promoting the safety and well-being of children. Given the tragic and serious circumstances being addressed by this Bill, Tusla will in many cases already be involved in providing support to the children and their caregivers. In some cases, Tusla may be making use of its powers under the Child Care Act 1991 to safeguard the safety and welfare of the child in the immediate aftermath of the crime. The Bill is a concise one but it deals with fundamental rights under our Constitution, including Article 42A, which provides that the State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as possible, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.”
“The study was commissioned by my Department to analyse and present recommendations on how the State’s response could be more effective, in terms of response after an incident occurs and how systems can be put in place to learn lessons with a view to reducing future incidence of domestic homicides insofar as this may be possible. The Bill ensures that, following the conviction of a parent or guardian of a child for the murder or manslaughter of another parent or guardian of that child, the Child and Family Agency will make an application to the courts. Tusla will be required to make an application as soon as practicable for an order that may remove or restrict the guardianship rights of the convicted guardian. My Department has worked with the Department of Children, Equality, and Disability to ensure the Bill is focused on child welfare.”
“It will do so in a manner that ensures their voices are heard and that their best interests are the paramount consideration at all times. The State must play a role here. Guardianship when one guardian kills another should not be regarded as a matter of private law to be determined between the families concerned, but must be regarded as a child protection and welfare issue. As I said earlier, this Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment. It is part of the ongoing work to implement appropriate recommendations from the independent study on familicide published in May 2023.”
“I welcome to the Public Gallery in the Seanad David French and his sister Veronica, who have campaigned tirelessly for a change to the law in memory of their sister, Valerie, who was murdered by her husband seven years ago. Valerie’s husband still retains all guardianship rights over their three children. I supported Mr. French in his campaign and, since becoming Minister for justice, I have worked to change the law. There are other families in the same terrible situation. This Bill acknowledges their circumstances and, I hope, in some way ameliorates their difficulties. This important Bill will give the State the necessary power to ensure the safety and welfare of the children left behind by such horrendous crimes are protected.”
“I am pleased to introduce the Bill to the Seanad this afternoon. This Bill upholds a fundamental principle that those convicted of the most serious crimes should not retain automatic legal authority over the children left behind. The Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment to examine proposals to remove guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partners or a parent of their child. As I said in the Dáil, the Bill is not about additional punishment for a crime, rather it is about the welfare and protection of children. It is intended to protect vulnerable children from further trauma, provide clarity for surviving family members, and prevent perpetrators from maintaining control over the lives of their children.”
“Obviously, we cannot put on notice of the suspect or indeed the victim. We will have this bizarre system whereby the Circuit Court is not going to be determining an adversarial dispute. Instead, under this proposed amendment, it will be asked to second-guess and to review the work of An Garda Síochána to see whether it should be permitted to continue with the fruits of its investigation. That would not just undermine An Garda Síochána terribly but would also have a significant negative impact on the work of the Judiciary.”
“It is much more appropriate that that be the method by which human involvement is here, that members of the Garda themselves review this investigative tool as they review all the investigative tools that they use at present. It would be completely inappropriate to put in a requirement that when members of the Garda are engaged in an investigation, before they act on foot of some lead obtained in an investigation they have to get approval from the Circuit Court for the purpose of continuing with that lead. It also begs the question of who is going to be the respondent in such an application? Under Senator Higgins's application, the Garda Commissioner has to go to the Circuit Court. Who is on the other side? Who will be the person who is the legitimate contradictor saying this should not happen?”
“In a serious crime investigation sometimes speed is of the essence to ensure that those who perpetrate serious offences are not permitted to remove themselves from the reach of the investigation. Any search will only provide investigative leads. As I say, it is an investigative tool. It is grouping relevant images together or finding relevant frames in CCTV footage gathered in an investigation into serious crime so that a person can review the relevant footage or have a starting point for their review. The purpose of the current subsection (8) is to ensure that there is not an over-reliance on the technology and that trained gardaí are interrogating results.”
“What we can all agree on in child sexual abuse material investigations is that gardaí must be able to sort through the volumes of material they find as quickly and efficiently as possible to remove victims from harm and bring perpetrators to justice. If we look at the types of searches gardaí may perform, a facial image will not always be used. It could be searches for a particular hair colour, height or distinctive facial feature. Is it an effective or efficient use of Garda time or resources for gardaí to have to make an application every time they wish to search for the height or age range in this type of data in order that they can filter out relevant images? If we were to proceed on the basis of this amendment we would increase the risk that suspects may flee the jurisdiction, as can be the case in current manual systems.”
“For example, with child sexual abuse material investigations, which I have raised repeatedly, a garda could be looking at hundreds if not thousands of victims or suspects within a single device and if an authorisation process is imposed it would mean not only would gardaí be spending time making applications to the Circuit Court but court services would be inundated with authorisation requests. This would not free up resources or speed up investigations. Rather, it would have the opposite effect and pose significant operational difficulties, particularly in the context of these types of investigations.”
“No one is suggesting that somebody is going to be convicted exclusively on foot of the use of this tool. However, it is an important tool. If we were to put in place the amendment suggested by Senator Higgins, it would lead to extraordinary consequences where a member of An Garda Síochána conducting an investigation using biometric analysis would not be able to act on foot of the results of biometric analysis unless he or she got an order from a Circuit Court judge to say they are permitted to use this investigative tool for the purpose of the serious investigation. It would have a chilling impact on investigative work done by An Garda Síochána.”
“Senator Higgins wants to change subsection (8) of section 43C so that it reads the results of biometric analysis shall not be used by An Garda Síochána, except with there being an order of the Circuit Court, "unless the use of such results has been approved by a decision of the Circuit Court". What I propose and what is there at present is that the results shall not be used "unless such results have been reviewed by a member of Garda personnel and have been ascertained by him or her to be of sufficient reliability to be so used". It is extremely important that we emphasise that the use of biometric analysis is an investigative tool to assist the Garda in very serious criminal investigations, as I have outlined previously, in respect of child sexual abuse. It is a tool.”
“It also must be prepared in consultation with me and with the Policing Authority and the Office of the Police Ombudsman, Fiosrú. This clearly is a code of conduct into which there will be inputs from many significant stakeholders, including me. It will come to me and ultimately be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Although it is a code of conduct prepared by the Garda Commissioner, if it subsequently comes into effect, it is a code that has had the sanction and that has been consulted on with many important stakeholders in the sphere. I will turn to amendment No. 9 being put forward by Senator Higgins.”
“It contains photographs and other biometric information. The Senator asked whether the database will be registered under the provision contained in the AI Act. Obviously, once this legislation is enacted, it is not the case that the Garda will be able to engage in biometric identification against a database so there will not be any necessity or requirement to introduce the registration of such a database. Senator Higgins also raised the issue of the code of conduct and whose code of conduct it is. It is the code of conduct that is prepared by the Garda Commissioner in consultation with, in the instance of what we are discussing here, the Data Protection Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.”
“It is unusual because had I come here with legislation saying I am introducing the biometric identification provided for in the AI Act, I suspect Senator Higgins would have been vigorously opposed to that and would be asking me why I was introducing this excessive and disproportionate measure. I suspect that is what she will say when I bring forward legislation seeking to introduce biometric identification, hopefully later this year or next year. Senator Higgins also correctly said that names are not biometric. That is correct. However, the difference between biometric analysis and biometric identification is that the latter, as I have repeatedly stated, is a process whereby an image is compared against a database of named individuals but the database contains biometric information.”
“I will take up Senator Higgins's offer before I deal with the substance of amendment No. 9. The Senator mentioned a number of issues of concern at the outset. In substance, I think her criticism is that I am not introducing the biometric identification that is defined within the AI Act. She is correct in that respect. I am not introducing biometric identification. Through this legislation I am introducing biometric analysis.”
“Even if I am asleep at the wheel, there is the requirement that it be presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas to ensure that it only comes into force if there is a vote of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I have no doubt that, if there were any defects or flaws in the area of data retention and protection, they would be readily identified by Members in this House and the Lower House during that process.”
“When the Senator looks at the concerns she has in terms of whether there will vigilance in respect of data, there is a whole myriad and series of layers there to ensure that data is protected in accordance with the laws that exist at present. First, there is the operation of GDPR, which is directly effective. Second, there are the provisions of the Data Protection Act. Third, there is an express statutory requirement on the Garda Commissioner to ensure that the code of practice covers issues in respect of the confidentiality, storage and destruction of data. Fourth, there is a requirement on the Garda Commissioner in terms of preparing that code of practice, which has those statutory obligations contained in it, to consult with the Data Protection Commission and IHREC. Finally, it has to go past me.”
“In terms of the requirements for the code of practice, there is a requirement on the Garda Commissioner to engage with the Data Protection Commission and IHREC in respect of how the code of practice operates, particularly in light of the statutory obligation on him to ensure that the code of practice respects the data requirements that I just spoke about a few moments ago. Even if that was not sufficient, the draft code of practice must then be presented to me so that I get an opportunity to appraise it. Then, it is set before the Houses of the Oireachtas and Members of this House and the Lower House shall have an opportunity to assess it. It will not come into force until such time as there is a vote of both Houses of the Oireachtas to approve the code of practice.”
“There is a clear statutory imperative that the code of practice must deal with all those data issues, whether confidentiality, security, storage, access, retention, erasure or destruction. If that is not sufficient, the Garda Commissioner, who is responsible for preparing a code of practice, must, in accordance with section 47A(4), consult with a number of other statutory entities. One of those entities is the Data Protection Commission. Another is the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC.”
“Even if that other legislation was not there, I would be very satisfied because of what is being proposed under Part 8A of the Bill and the codes of practice for Part 6A that the concerns the Senator has will be met in the legislation and the codes of practice. Section 10 of the Bill inserts a new section 47A that will provide for a code of practice for biometric analysis. What the House will notice in subsection (2)(c) is that the draft code of practice shall include provisions relating to "the confidentiality, security, storage, access, retention, erasure and destruction of data obtained as a result of the operation of Part 6A", which is biometric analysis.”
“The amendments proposed here are to include a new subsection in section 43C providing for data protection impact assessments where biometric analysis is carried out in the context of both sections 43C(2) and 43C(2)(a). Section 47A, which I will refer to presently, is to be inserted by section 10 of this Bill. I want Senator Higgins and other Senators to know that this already provides for data protection and human rights impact assessments to be conducted prior to the use of biometric analysis as part of the development of a code of practice. The GDPR that Senator Higgins referred to is a regulation that is directly effective in Ireland. In terms of its transposition, the Data Protection Act is also operating in Ireland. This legislation cannot ignore other legislation.”
“If the Garda identified an individual committing an offence or a suspect it was interested in identifying coming out of a nightclub in Dublin last night, if gardaí got his image, they would play and reference it against the database of those tens of thousands of individuals. If the system identified the individual as, say, Mark Daly, that is an example of biometric identification. It identifies the individual against a database. Biometric analysis is different. It does not have a database. The name of the individual is not known after the process, but it provides the Garda with an opportunity to filter, sort or seek to know whether the person in the image is the same as a person in a subsequent image. We do not have a database.”
“I thank Senator Higgins for her amendments. We are discussing amendments Nos. 7 and 8. Before getting into the substance of the amendments, I wish to address the question Senator Higgins raised at the outset. She again said that I failed to identify the distinction between biometric analysis, which is provided for in this legislation, and biometric identification, which she rightly says is covered in the AI Act. While I do not want to go back over old ground, the biggest distinction between the two is the fact that biometric identification involves identification against a database of biometric information. I will provide an example of the use of biometric identification, were it to be introduced. The way it would operate is that the Garda on its systems would have photographs and images of tens of thousands of people.”
“There has to be an ability for the Garda exercising these powers to do so for the purpose of ensuring that it is providing co-operation to or seeking co-operation from other international agencies.”
“It does not necessitate or require that the other country or police force that is requesting co-operation specifies whether they are coming to us pursuant to biometric identification or seeking other information derived from a database. This would be a query arising from another international police force or a query made by the Garda to that police force in respect of an individual whose image is on a piece of video footage. The Garda is using the analysis power that it has under this legislation to try to filter, sort out or rule out individuals in terms of the persons, whether or not it is a missing person, information for which has been provided by another police force, or whether or not it is a person who has been the subject of sexual abuse online and there is co-operation in that regard.”
“In that instance, a query may come from another international law enforcement agency in respect of a missing person or perhaps a child who has perhaps has been criminally assaulted in terms of child sexual abuse material on the Internet. That is one context in terms of how it may arise. In the alternative, there may be a desire on the part of An Garda Síochána to find out information in respect of a child victim in terms of child sexual abuse material or a missing person in Ireland or both. There has to be international co-operation between the police force in Ireland and international police forces. When it comes to the purpose of biometric analysis, the new purpose I want to put in is to facilitate that co-operation.”
“I also believe that the answer I provided was sufficient to answer the queries that she raised. The Senator talked about the proposed amendments to section 43C. As she will be aware, the primary amendment I am putting forward here is to include a new paragraph in section 43C(2). It provides that a member of Garda personnel shall not carry out biometric analysis other than for one of the following purposes, and the new purpose I am putting in is where it is necessary for co-operation with one or more other law enforcement agencies in relation to the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences.”
“The reason I did not stand up the last time was because I was only allowed to speak once. However, now I am allowed to speak twice because I am the mover of the amendment. The mover of an amendment is entitled to speak twice on Report Stage, but I am not. That was the reason I did not stand up in response to the Senator's previous contribution.”
“I believe this amendment to ensure that there is permission for use of biometric analysis, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so for international co-operation, is appropriate, considering that this type of technology will be of considerable assistance in trying to investigate child sexual abuse on the Internet, which, regrettably, is now so common in terms of Garda investigations. It is essential, because of that international nature of this heinous criminal act, that there is an ability for An Garda Síochána to co-operate with their international police partners in other countries.”
“Amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, and 10, are my amendments. I am proposing to make them to section 43C to include international co-operation as a purpose under the Bill. This is to ensure that there is clarity that the Garda may use biometric analysis where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, in the context of its co-operation with other international law enforcement authorities such as those in other member states. The provisions of the Bill will therefore apply to such co-operation. The amendments to subsection (6), on the data subjects that may be searched, and subsection (11), which provides definitions for the section, are consequential amendments to the insertion of a new purpose under subsection (2).”
“I am expressly providing in this legislation that we are not dealing with biometric identification. I will be coming back to the House in due course with other legislation that will deal with biometric identification and I very much look forward to hearing Senator Higgins's comments in respect of that as well.”
“I understand Senator Higgins's comments about biometric analysis not being referred to in the AI Act but to be clear, what we are proposing to allow the Garda to do with this Bill is analyse documents, such as video or images, gathered in the course of an investigation and utilise biometrics subject to certain safeguards, including that of necessity and proportionality. The term makes it clear what the Garda can do. I am satisfied that there is no inconsistency between what is in this legislation and what is in the AI Act. When it comes to our responsibilities and obligations under data protection legislation, the Bill is compatible there, too. For those reasons, I am afraid I cannot accept Senator Higgins's amendments. I fully recognise that there is a difference between biometric analysis and biometric identification.”
“To insert the amendments is to miss the key distinction between analysis and identification. I am not accepting the amendments. Digital evidence is part of almost every Garda investigation. This Bill is allowing for the sorting and filtering of information where necessary and proportionate to do so for serious crime. Gardaí gather data during investigation. That data will invariably, depending on the crime, contain large swathes of video or imagery. What this Bill is doing is giving the Garda the power to sort through data quickly while ensuring that there is a human reviewer who is making decisions throughout an investigative cycle. Any instances found of a person in footage gathered from a crime scene are to aid gardaí in ruling people in or out as potential persons of interest.”
“In the normal course, such a photograph may be circulated to other gardaí to find out if the person's identity is known. It would be useful in certain situations if gardaí could use a facial image to search against a database to see if that person is a convicted criminal, for example, but this particular use of biometrics is not what the Bill is providing for, which is why it must be clear that it has been excluded from the definition of biometric analysis. Respectfully, to insert the amendments suggested by Senator Higgins would be to miss the purpose of the Bill. This is a standard drafting approach to define a concept in terms of what it is and what it is not. The amendments proposed by Senator Higgins may, in fact, broaden out what may be permitted under this Bill beyond what is intended.”
“The current definition of "biometric analysis" will allow the Garda, subject to the requirements under Part 6A, to search for general characteristics for a particular unknown or known individual. The types of person that can be searched are set out in the proposed new section 43C(6). The definition of "biometric analysis" excludes biometric identification. As Senator Higgins will be aware I will be providing for biometric identification and its limitations in another Bill, as I have said previously. I am hoping to publish the general scheme of that Bill this year. For the avoidance of doubt, biometric identification should be considered as searching against databases to establish the identity of an individual. To illustrate this point, gardaí may have a photograph of a person.”
“1 to 3, inclusive, proposed by Senators Higgins and Ruane would amend the definition of "biometric analysis" to include reference to biometric identification systems and to remove the exclusion of biometric identification from the existing definition. Amendment No. 3 would also substitute the definition of "biometric identification" for that which is set out in Article 3(35) of the AI Act. The fundamental purpose of this Bill, which, as I say, is the biometric analysis Bill, is to provide the Garda with the power to analyse information by utilising biometrics on a retrospective basis. In the context of this Bill, biometric analysis is the preliminary step in the sphere of biometric processing. This is about analysis, not identification.”
“The real difference between biometric analysis and biometric identification - in fairness, this is what Senator Higgins read out when she recited the definition of biometric identification - is that biometric identification involves referencing biometric information against a database of such information. The example I gave on the previous occasion is that the biometric information of an individual is taken and is checked against a database of facial images or other biometric information, including the gait or other strong characteristics of an individual, that can be available that is contained in a separate database. That is different from what biometric analysis. The latter is a means of filtering or sorting information to facilitate An Garda Síochána in speeding up a process of investigation. Amendments Nos.”
“Maybe I am being harsh on her in respect of this, but the political charge is that in some respects I am trying to get biometric identification in through the back door via this legislation, when, in fact, I am stating that this deals with biometric analysis. I have two things to say in response to the Senator. The first is that the AI Act is a regulation that is directly effective and no matter what I do or what the Oireachtas does, we are bound by the AI Act. The second is that I have repeatedly stated that although this legislation seeks to deal with biometric analysis, I intend to bring forward legislation to permit biometric identification.”
“I thank Senator Higgins for tabling this amendment and for her contribution. I often look for areas where we have agreement. There is agreement between us to the effect that there is a difference between biometric analysis and biometric identification. That is why in this legislation there is in the first instance a definition of "biometric analysis". the legislation then states that this "does not include biometric identification". The legislation proceeds to define biometric identification. The Senator's criticism is that the definition of "biometric identification" is not on all fours with the definition of "biometric identification" in the AI Act.”
“It requires good psychological understanding of people's vulnerabilities and difficulties, and I am pleased to say Irish prison officers do this on a consistently effective basis. Nonetheless, I will not permit a situation to develop where prison officers can be exposed to violence. Fortunately, levels are low but I will not permit a situation to arise where a prison officer will be without sufficient capacity to defend himself or herself if they are subjected to violence, and that is the same with gardaí. I thank the Senators for their contributions.”
“It is important that we consider it. Everyone has an opportunity. The Senators here are highly intelligent and highly effective legislators, as is the case in the Dáil. Everyone reads and can see what is coming forward, and everyone can and does get an opportunity to speak. I heard what Senator O'Reilly said in respect of incapacitant spray. I have visited all the prisons in Ireland since I have been Minister, except one, the Midlands Prison, and I will be visiting it shortly. I commend the Irish Prison Service on the outstanding work it does. Every time I go to a prison, I ensure that I meet prisoners as well. A good relationship exists, in very difficult circumstances, between prisoners and prison officers. There is real skill in being a prison officer.”
“At present, the Garda sends a form called a C70 to the Defence Forces. A couple are sent to the Defence Forces every week. This can include when there is an explosive device that the Garda is concerned about. It was sometimes used for the transfer of money between banks. It was used recently in the context of the protest in trying to assist with the removal of trucks. It happens all the time and there is nothing bizarre about it. I think it is worthwhile putting it on a statutory basis. I will look into the issue Senator Keogan raised about Escort Ireland. Prostitution, the purchase of sex in Ireland, is illegal, and that is something that has been maintained, notwithstanding the fact that others wanted me to consider changing it. I disagree with Senator Stephenson's categorisation that this is a very cruel way to deal with legislation.”
“It is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. We have had them for many years. I have tried to include as many provisions in it as I can, but it is certainly not like the vast Bills we see in America. Senator Higgins also misstated the provision in respect of face coverings. It is not going to be illegal if someone is wearing a face covering for health, religious or privacy reasons. The only reason someone will be required, under the proposed amendment to the public order Act, to remove a face covering is if the covering is being worn for the purpose of evading detection for the commission of a criminal offence. Senator Keogan and other Senators mentioned the Defence Act legislation. I think it is worthwhile and will be an improvement to have that provision on a statutory basis.”
“First, in the Government Department where the Minister is proposing a change to the law, a proposal goes through lengthy policy consideration. It then goes to the Attorney General's office, where, before we even get to the drafting, we get legal advice in respect of the policy issues arising from the proposals. These are two very vigorous opportunities for detailed examination of legislation. It may not be by the Houses, but certainly internally by the Minister. There is then pre-legislative scrutiny before the relevant committee. A Bill is then introduced for the five Stages in Dáil Éireann. It then comes to the Seanad, and then goes back to the Dáil. We do, therefore, get an opportunity in Ireland to consider legislation very clearly. I disagree with Senator Higgins's suggestion that this is a US-style Bill. It is not.”
“In respect of the disregard scheme, I could have waited and said that we would not put the scheme into a miscellaneous provisions Bill and that we would wait for a separate Bill, but it would have taken at least another 18 months to two years to get it done. Things move on in politics and other priorities come onto the agenda. One of the things Senators will notice when they all become Ministers is that when they look at what is achievable, not everything can be done at the same time. If you get an opportunity to do something, my advice is to do it. Other criticisms were made by Senator Collins in respect of my limiting the opportunity for the Oireachtas to give this legislation detailed examination. We go through a very detailed process of trying to change the law.”
“In effect, this Bill, although it is called "miscellaneous provisions" legislation, seeks to amend the Firearms Act 1925, the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, the Extradition Act 1965, the Defence Act 1954, the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014 and the International Criminal Court Act 2006. The great advantage of a miscellaneous provisions Bill is that there is a whole body of legislation out there that needs to be amended in some certain ways and this is being done through this legislation.”