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 21 of 84.
“Applications may be made by Tusla, the convicted guardian, another guardian of the child or the child concerned where there has been a significant change to the circumstances of the child that is capable of affecting his or her welfare. Tusla must, and the convicted guardian may, make an application for such a review by the court where the conviction of the convicted guardian has been quashed or set aside. The court may determine that the order made under section 12C or section 12D should remain in place, having regard to the best interests of the child, and must provide its reasons for doing so in writing. Section 12F provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the voice of the child in proceedings under this Part.”
“Tusla may make such an application where there has been a failure of parental duty, as in section 12C, and there has been a change in the care arrangements or guardianship of the child as a result of the serious offence, for example, where a new guardian has had to be appointed or care arrangements under the Child Care Act 1991 are being put in place in respect of the child. Unlike section 12C, regarding murder and manslaughter, the provision here will be a discretionary power for Tusla. This is to ensure that guardianship of the convicted guardian can still be removed or restricted only in situations where the victim guardian has not been killed but is not in a position to exercise his or her guardianship. Section 12E provides for the procedures for a review of court orders under the Part.”
“This requires swift action, but the circumstances that give rise to such an application are thankfully rare. Section 12D provides for the same procedure and powers on the part of Tusla and the court in circumstances where the other guardian of the child has been a victim of a serious offence but has not been killed. A serious offence is defined as an offence causing serious harm that carries a sentence of at least ten years' imprisonment. In these circumstances, Tusla may apply to the court for an order removing or restricting guardianship of the guardian who has been convicted of a serious offence.”
“The court may impose such conditions as it considers necessary in the best interests of the child relating to the review of the order. It is important to emphasise that Tusla is required in these circumstances to make an application. However, it will be a matter for the court to determine the form of the order to be made, considering the best interests of the child, whether that order is one to restrict or to remove entirely the convicted guardian from office as a guardian. The court has the power to consider the totality of the circumstances in relation to any case before it may determine that it is not in the best interests of the child to make an order. The requirement is that this application be made as soon as practicable after the conviction, but in any case within six months of the conviction.”
“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 an 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 where a care order under the Child Care Act 1991 has been made or where another guardian of the child 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 the convicted guardian from office as a guardian.”
“Part IIA is the Part that gives effect to the programme for Government commitment to remove guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partners or a parent of their child. This is in implementation of the recommendations in Study on Familicide and Domestic and Family Violence Death Reviews. This new Part IIA contains nine sections. The first of these, section 12B, defines terms that are used throughout the new Part. 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.”
“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 Bill provides for a mechanism to remove or restrict the rights of a guardian who has been convicted of the killing of, or a serious offence causing harm to, the other guardian of a child. It amends the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 by the insertion of a new Part IIA to that Act. The Guardianship of Infants (Amendment) Bill contains four sections. Section 1 is a provision defining "Principal Act" as the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, which is the Act to be amended by this Bill. Section 2 inserts a new Part IIA into the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964.”
“This Bill is a short 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 by its laws, as far as practicable, protect and vindicate those rights. 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 their duty towards their child by their horrific crime of killing that child's parent. Importantly, the provisions of this Bill will apply also to cases where one guardian killed another before the commencement of the legislation.”
“The role of Tusla in making these applications recognises its important role as the State agency with primary responsibility to promote the safety and well-being of children. Given the tragic and serious circumstances 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. This is in keeping with Tusla’s functions to promote the welfare of children, to identify children who are not receiving adequate care and protection and co-ordinate information, as well as to have regard to the rights and duties of parents, whether under the Constitution or otherwise.”
“Tusla will be required to make that application as soon as is practicable for an order which may remove or restrict the guardianship rights of the convicted guardian. My Department has worked with the Department of Children, Disability and Equality to ensure that the Bill is focused on child welfare, ensure that the voice of the child can be heard in proceedings and that Tusla will be best placed to make the applications provided for in the Bill. I thank and commend my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Norma Foley, the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, who has been centrally involved in this legislation and has been completely supportive of its introduction.”
“It is part of the ongoing work to implement appropriate recommendations from the independent Study on Familicide and Domestic and Family Violence Death Reviews, published in May 2023. This study was commissioned by my Department to analyse and present recommendations on how the State's response could be more effective, both in terms of response after an incident occurs but also how systems could 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, Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, will make an application to the court.”
“This important Bill will give the State the necessary power to ensure that the safety and welfare of the children left behind by such horrendous crimes are protected. It will do so in a manner that ensures that their voices are heard and ensures 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 to "examine proposals to remove guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partners or a parent of their child".”
“I welcome David French and his sisters, Suzette and Hilary, to the Visitors Gallery and acknowledge his other sister, Veronica, who is watching in Australia. The reason this law is being brought forward today is because of the campaign David and his siblings launched, arising from the murder of his other sister, Valerie French. David French and his family have campaigned tirelessly for a change to the law in memory of his 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 David 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 and this Bill acknowledges their circumstances and I hope, in some way, ameliorates their difficulties.”
“I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am very pleased to introduce the Guardianship of Infants (Amendment) Bill 2026. 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. This 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". This 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, to provide clarity for surviving family members and to prevent perpetrators from maintaining control over the lives of their children.”
“It outlines a range of parking options as part of a package of traffic-calming measures. This includes parking solutions that, when combined with graduation and maximum standards, will support more efficient parking layouts. I thank Senator Costello for raising this important issue. I will certainly be passing on to the Minister, Deputy Browne, and to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, the issues of concern the Senator has raised.”
“One thing I did not respond to earlier was the issue the Senator has just raised at the beginning of her second contribution, which is about removing car parking spaces from our streets. It is important to note that under the local government Acts and the Road Traffic Act, the responsibility for making by-laws rests with local authorities. They are responsible for the control, management and regulation of the on-street parking of vehicles. Obviously local authorities must be very careful about the fact that they do not want to be removing on-street car parking spaces and just making life more unmanageable for people who need cars to come in to shop or to deliver their kids to school and so on. The Department of Transport provided further guidance within the design manual for urban roads and streets.”
“This is a very important part of my reply to the Senator. Each individual circumstance needs to be taken into account. When the planning authorities are granting planning permission they need to ensure there is adequate parking space available there, taking into account that in many instances cars will be the most appropriate, or in some instances the only available mechanism of transport for people.”
“While the settlement guidelines set out the general policy approach, where planning permission is sought for particular residential development proposals, the planning authorities and An Coimisiún Pleanála will need to be satisfied that the necessary and appropriate provision of parking is provided in accordance with the requirements of the settlement guidelines. For developments of 100 residential units or more, the settlement guidelines recommend that a mobility travel plan is prepared in support of the proposed parking arrangements. In areas with strong public transport links, lower parking ratios may be appropriate. However, planning authorities must also ensure that parking provision is sufficient to meet the specific needs of future residents of a proposed development and taking into account the local context.”
“I have listened to what the Senator has had to say about Airton Plaza in Tallaght in respect of that. I cannot give a detail as to where that fits in with regard to the ranges. These rates do not include bays assigned for use by a car club, designated short stay on-street electric vehicle charging stations or accessible parking spaces. These guidelines aim to support the use of public transport, walking and cycling to reduce traffic congestion, lower emissions and improve air quality, contributing to national climate goals. They encourage more sustainable urban development by prioritising accessible and connected communities. The provision of car parking can add a significant cost to developments and this factor is taken into account.”
“I can assure the Senator the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, and I and the Government recognise the importance of adequate parking provision within new developments. In this regard, parking rates are addressed at a national level in the sustainable residential development and compact settlement guidelines. These guidelines were issued in 2024 under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. As set out in the specific planning policy requirement, SPPR, No. 3 of the settlement guidelines, graduated maximum car parking rates are based on proximity to urban centres and sustainable transport options. These range from one space per dwelling in central or accessible locations to two spaces per dwelling in more peripheral or intermediate locations with higher rates of car dependency.”
“I thank Senator Costello for raising this important issue. Obviously, it is within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister, Deputy James Browne, and the Minister of State, Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan, but I am very happy to be here today to answer it and to take the opportunity to update Senator Costello and the House on the issue. At the outset, I absolutely agree with the Senator. It is fine for people who live very close to the place where they work or who have all the facilities around them to say they do not need to use a car, but for people who have to travel distances to get to work, bring their kids to sporting facilities or do their shopping, it is a fact of life that people do need a vehicle and we need to try to facilitate them as much as possible.”
“As the Senator identified, the local authority plays a vital role in respect of this in its collaboration with the Garda, but also my Department does have funding available. We provide grants of up to €40,000 for capital expenditure and up to €5,000 for maintenance. I am informed, and the Senator will be very pleased to hear, that grants worth €45,000 have already been awarded to Monaghan under this scheme. That is something we will just need to continue to roll out. Everyone, as I said, has the right to feel safe. The scheme was extended not only to cover new CCTV schemes but also to provide funding for the extension or upgrade of existing CCTV systems which are incomplete or obsolete. Monaghan, as I said, got €45,000, but in total grants of over €968,000 have been approved to date for 36 community CCTV schemes.”
“It provides them with a greater sense of safety if people who come in with bad intentions know that they will be recorded if they are up to criminal activity in the area.”
“Upon enactment of the Bill, the Garda will forward the code of practice to me for formal commencement. I am conscious that the Senator is particularly concerned about the scheme in Carrickmacross, when it will commence and when it will be available. I cannot give him a specific answer in respect of that but, certainly, engagement with the local authority there and the Garda is extremely important. I am happy to engage with the Senator in respect of that to ensure that the system can operate to the maximum effect possible in the near future. I know that he is tirelessly raising this issue of getting the CCTV scheme up and running in Carrickmacross. That is clearly something the people of the town want to see. It is of huge benefit, as I said, not just to the Garda but also the local community.”
“The Garda launched a public consultation for a draft code of practice on public CCTV on 27 January 2026. In addition to seeking the views of the public, the Commissioner, as required by the Act, formally sought input from me, the Policing and Community Safety Authority, Fiosrú, the Data Protection Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. This consultation was also extended to the Local Government Management Agency. The public and statutory consultations are now completed and the code is finalised. The code will not commence until after the enactment of the recording devices Bill 2025, which will amend the transitional arrangements for existing CCTV applications submitted but not yet approved under the existing regime.”
“This ensures that every application receives the necessary and robust review to ensure that the CCTV application will withstand a human rights and privacy screening test. All applications must be presented to the CCTV advisory committee and the need for each camera justified. The recording devices Act provides for a new regime for the authorisation and operation of CCTV schemes. Part 5 of that Act, when commenced, will introduce these new arrangements. Part 8 stipulates the requirement for the Garda Commissioner to draft a new code of practice. The aim of the code of practice is to provide further detail on the general operation of public CCTV. It also aims to ensure that public CCTV is used only for policing purposes and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences.”
“The consideration and operation of community CCTV by local authorities is a matter, ultimately, for the local authority concerned. As Minister, I have no role in the operations of the local authorities, and updates on the roll-out of individual community CCTV schemes should be sought from the relevant local authority. I am pleased to inform the Senator that Monaghan is among the local authorities to have rolled out community CCTV schemes in conjunction with the Garda and with funding from my Department. Other local authorities have done so as well. The Garda national community engagement bureau offers support and assistance in relation to all applications and processes. Each application is evaluated on the principles of necessity, proportionality and legality.”
“Like the Senator, I want to see CCTV rolled out throughout the country. It provides a great source of protection to members of the public. It is also a very helpful tool for An Garda Síochána in ensuring that it can police an area thoroughly and professionally. As the Senator knows, community safety is a top priority for me, the Department and the Government. Everyone has the right to feel safe in their communities. CCTV in public places has a role in giving people a greater sense of security. It is also effective in deterring criminal activity and antisocial behaviour and assisting with the investigation of crime. I am therefore fully aware why the people of Carrickmacross want to see the CCTV system up and running.”
“In regard to what the Senator said about counselling notes, I will have an opportunity in the Seanad when the miscellaneous provisions Bill comes here. We had a very good discussion on it yesterday on Committee Stage. I am very satisfied that the measures I introduced and got through Committee Stage yesterday will significantly strengthen the current situation. The current situation is unacceptable. I am putting in place a statutory presumption that there will be non-disclosure of counselling notes but, as the Senator will obviously be aware, they cannot be completely banned. That is the clear advice that I and the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre have received. We have got to get a balancing act, and the balancing act I will be discussing here in the Seanad when the Bill comes to it is the suitable one.”
“As indicated, my objective is to implement the majority report. I do not have sufficient funding to implement the minority report, to be frank with the Senator. In regard to what I have got to do, if I increased the thresholds, and I hope to do that, it will necessarily result in there being more work for the Legal Aid Board to do. I have to ensure there are sufficient resources within the Legal Aid Board to be able to do that. As the Senator will be aware, a range of supports are available for people experiencing domestic abuse. We discussed some of them yesterday at committee; I will come back to that presently. It is important to try to ensure there is greater access for people to the civil legal aid system, particularly for those who are victims of domestic abuse.”
“I am committed and I want to see the majority report implemented. I want to see the commencement of the implementation of that. I am going to start that in the context of budgetary discussions.”
“Many of them would need to work in parallel with other ongoing reforms in the civil justice system. In that context, both my Department and the Legal Aid Board are working closely together to ensure any proposed reforms are developed as part of the annual budgetary estimates process, taking into account the broader implications for Government policy. The recommendations of the review will also have to be considered alongside the findings from Ireland's first legal needs survey conducted in 2025. While preliminary results of the survey have been released, further analysis is under way, with my Department working closely with the OECD on final outputs. The survey will provide an important insight into the legal needs of people living in the country and will help inform future policy development in this area.”
“I have decided that the report that is most implementable is the majority report. When it comes to the commencement of recommendations and the implementation of the report, however, I have to go through a budgetary process. I could not just decide to introduce the recommendations, say, this month because I have not got the money available and lined up as a result of the budgetary measures and budgetary agreements. As the Senator will know, a new budgetary process is starting and the budget will be in early October. I have instructed officials that I want to include within the justice provision for budget 2027 funding for the improvement and commencement of the implementation of the majority report. A critical aspect of any implementation will therefore be the careful sequencing of reforms.”
“This comprehensive review was the first of its kind since the scheme’s establishment some 46 years ago. Members of the review group included the former Chief Justice, Mr. Frank Clarke, and representatives from the Legal Aid Board, FLAC, the legal profession and academia. As the Senator indicated, I got the review group reports last year, which were published in July 2025. They identify several key areas for reform, including the potential to modify the application for the legal merits test in certain circumstances and to provide access to legal representation, irrespective of means, for victims of domestic violence. I have considered the report and I have decided that I want to seek to implement the majority report. Finance is obviously an issue I have to deal with in terms of having the funds available to implement these reports.”
“The statutory body responsible for the provision of civil legal aid is the Legal Aid Board, which gives advice and aid to persons of modest means. A range of civil legal issues are covered by the scheme, including domestic violence applications, which I am pleased to say are prioritised by the Legal Aid Board. In addition, the civil legal aid regulations from 2017 provide that no contribution is payable for those who are applying solely for orders under the Domestic Violence Act 2018. Having a civil legal aid scheme and a Legal Aid Board that is equipped to meet the changing needs of society is critical to ensuring access to justice, particularly for those in need. As the Senator will be aware, the recommendations of the civil legal aid review are currently being examined by my officials.”
“I thank Senator Stephenson for raising this important issue. As she will be aware, access to justice is an absolutely fundamental corner-stone of our justice system. In order for laws to operate effectively and for people to get the benefit of the laws we enact in the Oireachtas, there has to be a mechanism by which they can seek the administration of justice through our courts. As the Senator recognises, nowhere is this more significant than in cases where victims of domestic violence need the court’s support. Civil legal aid and advice is provided for qualifying individuals in a range of civil matters. There are two elements to the scheme. One is legal advice and the other is legal representation. As the Senator indicated, eligibility is determined by way of a means test and a merits test.”
“I move amendment No. 20: In page 8, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 43 of Principal Act 8. Section 43 of the Principal Act is amended— (a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) of section 13” for “13(1) or (2)”, and (b) in subsection (3), by— (i) the substitution of “subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) of section 13” for “13(1) or (2)” where it first occurs, (ii) the insertion, in clause (I) of subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a), of “or subsection (3) or (4) of section 13” after “section 6(1)”, and (iii) the insertion, in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b), of “or subsection (3) or (4) of section 13” after “section 6 (1)”.”.”
“It is appropriate that we criminalise the funds being used to commit terrorist offences and that there is not a requirement in the legislation for the offender to know that it is for a specific terrorist offence. The amendment is not going to weaken the laws in respect of trying to combat terrorist financing. In fact, it will probably make it easier to prosecute individuals whose objective has been to finance terrorism. Previously they may have been able to seek to use the defence that they did not seek to fund that specific act and argue that the prosecution must prove that they knew that the funding was for that act. It is important that liability should rest on individuals who know that they are funding terrorist activities, even if they cannot be specifically aware of which terrorist activity is going to be covered by their funding.”
“I thank Deputy Ward for his question. He accurately sets out the purpose of amendment No. 19 in respect of the offence of financing terrorism. One of the requirements would be that the prosecution would have to show that the funds were used to commit specific terrorist offences. That was something that was too specific. If somebody gives money for the purpose of terrorist activity, it should not be a requirement on the prosecutor or the State to establish that he or she had knowledge that it was going to be used for a specific terrorist act. Somebody could be acquitted of the offence by saying that he or she did not realise it would be used in, to take the earlier example, the Bataclan, and that the funding he or she provided was for another terrorist offence.”
“That paragraph requires that member states take measures to establish jurisdiction over terrorism offences where the member state refuses to surrender or extradite a person suspected or convicted of such an offence to another member state or to a third country. Section 43 of the principal Act already does this for a range of terrorist offences where the DPP consents. However, the terrorist financing offence was not fully encompassed by this, so this technical amendment No. 20 rectifies that gap.”
“This is to meet the requirements of paragraph (4) of Article 19 of the directive. Amendment No. 20, which is the final amendment, builds on amendment No. 19 in relation to extraterritorial jurisdiction of the terrorist financing offence. It amends section 43 of the principal Act, which relates to proceedings for offences committed outside the State. The amendment requires that the terrorist financing offences, when committed outside the State, be only proceeded against with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, as is required for other terrorist offences in the Act. It also gives further effect to paragraph (4) of Article 19 of the directive mentioned previously.”
“The amendments to section 13(6) are compliance provisions in respect of jurisdictional requirements of the directive in Article 19. Paragraph (1) of Article 19 of the directive requires that member states establish jurisdiction where certain conditions are met; for instance, where the act is committed by an Irish citizen. The amendments to section 13(6) of the principal Act provide for these in respect of the offence of financing terrorism. The amendment to section 13(7) is, again, linked to jurisdictional requirements of the directive and serves to extend jurisdiction in respect of the terrorist financing offence when committed outside the State, beyond those listed in section 13(6), under another set of conditions which are referred to in section 43 of the principal Act.”
“Amendment No. 19 relates to section 13 of the Principal Act and is intended to give effect to requirements of the 2017 directive. Section 13 of the Act relates to the offence of financing terrorism, which is linked to Article 11 of the directive. Paragraph (2) of Article 11 stipulates that in respect of the offence of financing terrorism, it shall not be necessary that the funds in fact be used to commit terrorist offences nor that the offender know for which specific terrorist offence the funds are to be used. Currently section 13(5) of the principal Act only partially covers these requirements. Paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 13(5), as proposed to be inserted by this amendment, are more comprehensive, ensuring full compliance.”
“(c) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (3) to which paragraph (b) of that subsection applies, it shall not be necessary to prove that— (i) the funds concerned were wholly or partly used for the purpose of carrying out an act referred to in the said paragraph (b), or (ii) the accused was aware of the specific act for which the funds concerned were, or were to be, wholly or partly used.”, (b) the substitution, in subsection (6), of “Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4)” for “Subsections (1) and (2)”, (c) the substitution, in subsection (7), of “Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4)” for “Subsections (1) and (2)”, (d) the insertion of the following subsection: “(9) Subsections (9) and (10) of section 6 shall apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section subject to the modification that the reference in the said subsection (9) to an offence under that section shall be construed as a reference to an offence under this section.”.”.”
“(b) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (3) to which paragraph (a) of that subsection applies, it shall not be necessary to prove that the funds concerned were wholly or partly used for the benefit or purposes of a terrorist group within the meaning of Part 2.”
“I move amendment No. 19: In page 8, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 13 of Principal Act 7. Section 13 of the Principal Act is amended by— (a) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (5): “(5) (a) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), it shall not be necessary to prove that— (i) the funds concerned were wholly or partly used for the purpose of carrying out an act referred to in that subsection (1), or (ii) the accused was aware of the specific act for which the funds concerned were, or were to be, wholly or partly used.”
“(2G) A person guilty of an offence— (a) under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 6, and (b) that consists of a threat to commit an act (in this subsection referred to as the ‘threatened act’) referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘terrorist activity’ with the intention referred to in that paragraph, shall be liable on conviction to the penalty to which he or she would be liable if he or she were convicted under the said subparagraph (i) of the offence consisting of the threatened act.”, and (d) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (3): “(3) In this section ‘corresponding offence’ means— (a) in relation to an offence (in this paragraph referred to as the ‘first-mentioned offence’) under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 6 consisting of engaging in a terrorist activity, the offence (in this paragraph referred to as the ‘second-mentioned offence’) specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 that consists of the act of which the first-mentioned offence consists, notwithstanding that it is not a component element of the second-mentioned offence that that act be done with the intention specified in the definition of ‘terrorist activity’, and (b) in relation to an offence (in this paragraph referred to as the ‘first-mentioned offence’) under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 6 consisting of engaging in a terrorist-linked activity, the offence (in this paragraph referred to as the ‘second-mentioned offence’) specified in Part 2 or 3 of Schedule 2 that consists of the act of which the first-mentioned offence consists, notwithstanding that it is not a component element of the second-mentioned offence that that act be done with a view to engaging in a terrorist activity or committing any other offence.”.”.”
“(2F) A person guilty of an offence— (a) under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 6, and (b) that consists of a threat to commit an offence (in this subsection referred to as the ‘threatened offence’) referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of ‘terrorist activity’ with the intention referred to in that paragraph, shall be liable on conviction to the penalty to which he or she would be liable if he or she were convicted under the said subparagraph (i) of the threatened offence.”
“(2E) A person guilty of an offence under subparagraph (iia) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 6 of attempting to commit the offence under subparagraph (i) of the said paragraph (a) of engaging in a terrorist-linked activity shall be liable on conviction to the penalty to which he or she would be liable if he or she were convicted of the second-mentioned offence.”
“I move amendment No. 18: In page 8, line 21, to delete “offence.”.” and substitute the following: “offence.”, (c) by the insertion of the following subsections: “(2C) A body corporate guilty of an offence under section 6 shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine of such amount as, having regard to the gravity of the offence, the court considers appropriate. (2D) A person guilty of an offence under subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 6 of attempting to commit the offence under subparagraph (i) of the said paragraph (a) of engaging in a terrorist activity shall be liable on conviction to the penalty to which he or she would be liable if he or she were convicted of the second-mentioned offence.”