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 25 of 84.
“I also want to emphasise that the decision by the head of the body is subject to an important check. Prior consultation is required with me, as Minister for justice, and, where relevant, the line Minister. The head of the body is required to make the decision as soon as practicable. This is important to ensure that momentum is maintained. The section also ensures transparency around decision-making by requiring the reasons grounding any refusal to be notified to the chairperson. Section 6 is similar to section 5, but concerns requests for assistance from former ministerial office holders. This extension seeks to take account of the inquiry’s terms of reference, which include investigation of the approach taken by UK state authorities to security normalisation before and after the Good Friday Agreement.”
“The head may accede to a request in full or in part, but must refuse a request where to do so would be likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the State, would be likely to prejudice a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings or would otherwise be inconsistent with the functions, whether statutory, of the designated State body. I want to emphasise that the assessment requires an individual consideration of each question and the potential evidence concerned. There are no classes of records that are automatically excluded from being put into evidence using this mechanism. Equally, general or speculative assertions of harm will not be enough to ground a refusal; the head must be of the opinion that actual prejudice to the fundamental concerns of the State is likely.”
“Such a request may be made to the Garda. However, section 4 allows the Minister to designate other bodies at the request of the chairman. These other bodies include Departments of State and the Defence Forces. This is a new feature compared to the 2019 Act and recognises that bodies other than An Garda Síochána hold records that are potentially relevant to the inquiry. Section 5 deals with how the chairman may request assistance from a State body, be that the Garda or another designated State body. The head of the State body could be the Garda Commissioner or the Chief of Staff. An important development on the 2019 Act is that a request may, in addition to specifying the questions the chairperson is requesting be asked, specify current and past office holders from whom the inquiry wishes to hear.”
“As the House will be aware, I intend to bring forward separate legislative proposals in the coming weeks to progress implementation of the Government's commitments in the joint framework on addressing the legacy of the Troubles agreed with the United Kingdom Government last September. Part 2 of the Bill contains the substantive provisions detailing the application and operation of the bespoke legal mechanism. As referred to earlier, it is premised on the taking of evidence in this jurisdiction before the High Court. This mirrors the 2019 legislation and is essential to safeguard the interests of the State, including its sovereignty, and the rights of Irish State witnesses, while seeking to maximise evidential opportunities for the inquiry. As I have said, the mechanism is triggered by a request from the chairman for assistance.”
“These take account of the nature of the inquiry and its broader terms of reference, and are aimed at maximising the evidential opportunities available to the chairman and enhancing transparency. I will go through the sections in due course. This is a stand-alone Bill concerned solely with providing assistance to the Omagh inquiry. The mechanism it provides will be available to the chairman over the lifetime of the inquiry and will allow for assistance to be sought as matters arise in the course of its work. This single focus recognises the significance of the bombing and also the need for speedy enactment.”
“This is vital and the Government is at one with counsel to the inquiry when he said, on announcing that the first evidential hearings will now start in September, that it is important that the inquiry is not rushed and that it is as comprehensive as it can be in addressing its terms of reference. Turning to the Bill before the Seanad today, it provides a bespoke legal mechanism to facilitate the taking of sworn evidence from State bodies and former ministerial officeholders before a judge of the High Court at the request of the chairman of the commission. The approach is modelled on the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 2019, which Senators will be aware was enacted to enable the taking of oral evidence from gardaí for the purposes of UK Troubles-related inquests. Importantly, the Bill includes some new features.”
“To date, some 29,000 pages have been disclosed by the Irish Government to the Omagh bombing inquiry. I welcome the acknowledgement by counsel to the inquiry at its hearing in March of the "considerable efforts that have been made" by Irish authorities and the "effective progress" that is being made to respond to the inquiry's requests. My Department and the Garda Commissioner have dedicated resources in place to support the disclosure process to ensure that it is conducted with rigour and that all potentially relevant material is made available to the inquiry in line with the memorandum of understanding.”
“Successive Governments have navigated similar challenges in the past, including assisting the Northern Ireland courts during the civil proceedings taken by the families, and enacting primary and secondary legislation to support cross-Border co-operation with UK authorities. I have referred to the actions I have already taken to support the Omagh inquiry. These include agreeing a memorandum of understanding with the chairman of the inquiry last April to guide the disclosure of Irish State materials, and implementing measures to support the disclosure of sensitive personal data. These measures are in operation and are working very well, with a significant quantity of Irish State materials, principally from An Garda Síochána, disclosed to the inquiry and more being disclosed on a rolling basis.”
“The formal decision taken by the Government on 9 July 2024 to assist the inquiry, and to authorise officials to engage with the inquiry to explore mechanisms for working together, was taken in recognition of the importance of the inquiry for families and survivors and their quest for truth and justice. The programme for Government also clearly reiterates our commitment, stating that we will play our full part in legacy processes, including facilitating and supporting the Omagh inquiry. Delivering on our commitment to assist an inquiry established by another sovereign state is not without its challenges. There are legal complexities that must be navigated to ensure consistency with the laws of Ireland and the Government's duty to safeguard the essential interests of the State and the constitutional and other rights of citizens.”
“The Bill deals with the taking of oral evidence before our courts and will sit alongside the concrete measures I have already put in place to facilitate the disclosure of Irish State documents to the inquiry. The bombing of the town of Omagh on 15 August 1998 was the single worst atrocity of the Troubles, resulting in the loss of 31 lives and at least 220 people injured. At a time of collective hope, it was a senseless, brutal terrorist attack that sought to undermine the peace that had been secured some months earlier. The Government has condemned the abhorrent criminal actions of those who planned the attack and planted and detonated the bomb. I do so again today. The families and survivors in their eloquent testimony to the inquiry's commemorative hearing last year gave voice to the enormity of that loss and its enduring toll.”
“I am pleased to introduce the International Co-operation (Omagh Bombing inquiry) Bill to the Seanad today. The purpose of the Bill is to assist the Omagh bombing inquiry established by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in February 2024 to investigate whether the bombing could have been prevented by UK state authorities. Its terms of reference are set out in the Schedule to the Bill for the ease of Senators. The Government has made clear its commitment to facilitating and supporting the work of the inquiry to the greatest extent possible, and the Bill before the House today is another important step towards delivering on this commitment.”
“That is why the proposal I have come with involves a slight change to Deputy Kelly's wording. We should assess the impact on the human rights of the person. That will allow judges to focus on the operational effect of the Parts relating to human rights, something that will also be assessed by An Garda through the human rights impact assessment during the development of codes of practice for those Parts. I thank Deputy Kelly for bringing forward his amendment. His intention in amendment No. 11 is that the human rights of individuals should be assessed by judges. That is being done, although the only real change is that I have not limited it to the national or ethnic origins. I have adopted a broader approach, but human rights will contemplate someone's national or ethnic origins.”
“However, I have rejigged the wording in order to give what the Deputy proposed what we would regard as a more effective meaning in terms of its presentation. I tabled amendment No. 10 having considered the amendment put forward by Deputy Kelly on Committee Stage and again now. His amendment asks that the designated judge consider whether Part 3, which deals with ANPR, or Part 6, which deals with third-party CCTV, or Part 6A, which deals with biometric analysis, operate in a manner calculated to secure "confidence in the impartial performance of policing functions, without disproportionate impact on persons of particular national or ethnic origins". Using the words "national or ethnic origins" would have left it unclear as to how this could be measure for those Parts.”
“I move amendment No. 10: “11. Section 49 of the Principal Act is amended— (a) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (3): “(3) The functions of the designated judge are to— (a) keep under review the operation of Parts 3, 6 and 6A in so far as each of them has come into operation, and (b) report to the Taoiseach from time to time and at least once every 12 months concerning any matters relating to that operation, including the impact of such operation on human rights, that the designated judge considers should be reported.”, and (b) in subsection (6), by the insertion of “or disclose the personal data relating to an individual” after “security of the State”.”. This amendment arises on foot of an amendment tabled by Deputy Kelly on Committee Stage, which, in effect, I am accepting.”
“The requirements for assessments and consultation make it a lengthy and detailed process and would further delay the roll-out of what I believe is an essential, necessary digital tool for An Garda. A code may need to be reviewed earlier than the five years and there is nothing preventing this from happening in the Bill. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.”
“8 is also not considered necessary because section 47A sets out what is to be included in the code of practice. This includes the parameters for the carrying out of biometric analysis. The code of practice for the carrying out of such analysis will be laid before the Houses. This means that the Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise the code alongside what is required under the provisions in section 47A. In the context of amendment No. 9, Deputy Carthy is proposing to change the initial review period from five years to two years. As I said on Committee Stage, setting this at five years aligns with the principal Act. We can already see how involved the process of drafting a code of practice is.”
“This will also apply to Part 6A, which is being inserted by section 10. There is an express provision that states that the recording devices Act is without prejudice to what is in the Data Protection Acts. There are also clear limitations on searching already set out in section 43C. That information must be in the context of, among other things, a specific investigation. As stated, the code of practice provisions already set out what needs to be included in a code. These include provisions relating to procedures, confidentiality, security, storage, access, retention and parameters for use. The code can also set out different provisions in relation to types of biometric data or the circumstances in which biometric analysis can be carried out. As a result, I cannot accept amendment No. 7. Amendment No.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for tabling these three amendments. One of the things that is noticeable when looking at this type of legislation, which involves data, is that there is a huge amount of legislation in place at present outside of the recording devices Act of 2023. I am referring in particular to the Data Protection Acts. Those Acts contain prohibitions on mass surveillance, indiscriminate searches and utilising biometrics. I do not believe amendment No. 7 is necessary because a lot of what it deals with is already prohibited under the Data Protection Acts. It is not good legislative practice to duplicate existing statutory powers. Section 4 of the principal Act notes that the provisions of the recording devices Act are without prejudice to the provisions of the Data Protection Acts 1988 to 2018.”
“As I mentioned previously, gardaí will look to their European counterparts during the procurement process because these types of tools are in use in other EU states. The code of practice procedure already requires the Commissioner to conduct data protection and human rights impact assessments before the deployment of any technology. Therefore, I do not think a pilot programme, whether it is necessary or not, should be put into primary legislation. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for his amendment. As he indicated, he wants to put into legislation that a pilot programme should be carried out before biometric analysis is commenced by An Garda Síochána. As I mentioned on Committee Stage, the putting in place of a pilot scheme for the roll-out of any new technology is an operational matter for the Garda Commissioner and is not appropriate to this Bill. For instance, regarding the use of body cameras, which Deputy Carthy mentioned, or the use of Tasers, the Commissioner has introduced them through the use of a pilot project. That type of technology is used operationally on the ground by An Garda Síochána in communities. Gardaí have not yet procured this type of technology. Accuracy will be a decisive factor in any decision made.”
“The offence provision follows on from what is set out in principal Act and focuses on the falsification, concealment, destruction or unauthorised disposal of information. These are offences that could have significant consequences for people if information were destroyed or concealed. That is what is criminalised in the proposed legislation at present. The Deputy's amendment would ensure that any inadvertent use would be subject to criminal penalties when it would be far more appropriate that such activity be considered in a disciplinary context and by the various authorities that oversee An Garda Síochána. I understand the intention of the amendment, but I do not see that making Garda personnel subject to an offence for inadvertent use is good policy here. As a result, I cannot accept the amendment.”
“I did look at it and I am opposed to the amendment for the following reason. I am conscious that the Deputy wants to make it a criminal offence if a garda should access or use biometric analysis other than in accordance with the legislation. That would mean that a garda could be prosecuted in circumstances where the mistake was inadvertent or where something was done which did not reach the culpable level that would merit a criminal prosecution. Like the Deputy, I do not want to see gardaí unnecessarily or unfairly prosecuted. If this provision was included in the Act, there would be a requirement on the DPP or whoever is investigating it to say there is a breach of the Act because even if it was an inadvertent breach of the rules in respect of biometric analysis, there was nonetheless a breach of the rules.”
“Subsection (2) states: [the] draft code of practice shall include provisions relating to- [...] (b) parameters for use of biometric analysis, including geographical and, subject to section 43C(7), temporal limits of such use, (c) the confidentiality, security, storage, access, retention, erasure and destruction of data obtained as a result of the operation of Part 6A, It specifically includes, in subsection (2), reference to data, and also subsection (3)(b) refers to "different types of biometric data and biometric analysis", and "different categories of persons or data (including biometric data)". The issue is referred to and covered already in the Bill. There is, as I say, a provision there regarding the destruction or deletion of data where it does not result in the recognition or categorisation of a person.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for this amendment. As the subheading to it indicates, it is a processing amendment. I want to point out, however, that a processing provision is already provided for and the wording proposed for this section will be governed by the code of practice. The provisions of the recording devices Act are without prejudice to the requirements of the Data Protection Acts. The general principles of data protection are set out in those Acts and the processing of data, including access, retention, storage, deletion or destruction of data, will be supplemented by the code of practice. I ask Deputy Carthy to look at section 47A, which is on page ten of the Bill and, in particular, subsections (2) and (3) of that section.”
“Where gardaí are deploying a high-risk AI system, there will be criteria to be fulfilled more generally under the AI Act for deployers, as I mentioned earlier, and the providers of systems will also have to fulfil certain criteria. Notwithstanding this, the Data Protection Acts will continue to apply, as set out in section 4 of the principal Act. There is also oversight whereby a High Court judge will be required to report to the Taoiseach annually on the code. There is a huge amount of oversight there. I believe it is sufficient to ensure there is public confidence in the work that is being done by An Garda Síochána should this provision be enacted. I have to say, however, that I remain opposed to the amendment we are discussing now because I think it would have a very negative impact operationally on the work of An Garda Síochána.”
“It will be published as a statutory instrument, making it a publicly available document. Human rights and data protection impact assessments will be required as part of the procedure for drafting a code of practice. In respect of the code, the Garda Commissioner, as is the case with the current codes of practice under the principal Act, will have to consult with several bodies listed in section 47A, which is to be inserted by section 10 in this Bill, and publish the code for views prior to adoption. There is, therefore, a whole statutory mechanism to ensure there is oversight and engagement in respect of the finalisation of those codes of practice.”
“If we are going to have a chief superintendent who has to authorise each one of them before biometric analysis can take place, that is going to have a very limiting impact on the work of the Garda. In fact, the likelihood is that it will just become a paper-signing exercise or a box-ticking exercise and it would undermine the whole purpose of the real measures that are going to be put in place to ensure there is proper oversight. Deputy Carthy said he did not gain much confidence from the code of practice. He should reserve his comments in respect of that because a code of practice setting out procedures surrounding the use of retrospective biometric analysis will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. It will be subject to debate and resolutions being passed.”
“I just want to clarify. I am certainly not suggesting that any of the Deputies here are highlighting issues for the purpose of obstructing the legislation or, indeed, trying to obstruct the work of An Garda Síochána. Deputies are highlighting issues that are of concern to them. Similarly, however, in responding to them I have to be able to say be able to say how I think in practice the amendment, if enacted, would impact An Garda Síochána. My view is that if this amendment was enacted, it would have a very negative operational impact on the force because of the fact that we are dealing with images that can come in bundles of hundreds or thousands.”
“The Commission guidelines for high-risk AI systems are still in drafting and have been reviewed by member states with feedback provided. These will include a list of practical examples of use cases of AI systems that are high risk or not high risk. While the guidelines will act as an interpretive tool in understanding how to implement the AI Act, the European Court of Justice will be the ultimate arbiter of the AI Act and its provisions.”
“However, there are also conditions that must be met in order for those searches to be permitted and these include that it has to be necessary and proportionate in the context of a specific criminal investigation into serious offences, offences which have penalties of five years or more, a matter relating to national security, or in a missing person investigation. It can also only be used on documents gathered in the context of that investigation. An authorisation does need to be reserved for the most intrusive use in cases. The Bill is about using technology to aid investigative work, not to replace it. For those reasons, I cannot accept Deputy Carthy's amendment. I note what Deputy Gannon said in respect of the EU AI Act. I want to emphasise again that the Bill will be in line with EU law.”
“It has the potential to group relevant images together, so a person can either review the footage or have a starting point for that review. Inserting an authorisation process for the carrying out of biometric analysis, as is suggested by this amendment, would, in my opinion, be unnecessary. This, as I said, is a decision-support tool with clear safeguards set out in the Bill, including approval by both Houses for a code of practice. Biometric analysis could be used to search for general biometric characteristics for an unidentified victim, a suspect, a person who is a threat to the security of the State or indeed a missing person.”
“If the approach in the amendment were to be adopted, it would require the biometric analysis of each image to be approved by a chief superintendent. We would clearly lose valuable time seeking authorisations. We would lose time identifying vulnerable victims and waste valuable Garda time. I regret to say it would make no operational sense to proceed in the manner proposed by the amendment. Identifiable persons will be responsible for not only reviewing the footage or images, but responsible for any decisions made in the course of an investigation. Biometric analysis could aid investigators by finding all instances of a distinctive facial feature or scar in what can be hundreds of thousands of images or videos on a single seized device. All searching proposed in this Bill is for investigative leads only.”
“Let us take an example of where biometric analysis will be of considerable assistance to An Garda Síochána. This is in investigations of child sexual abuse material. As an aside, I should say that earlier today I was at the launch of the annual report of the Irish Internet Hotline. It is an excellent report, but it does reveal the extent to which child sexual abuse material is being derived, accessed and used by people in Ireland. It is something we need to be constantly vigilant about and ensure that we have a very strong ability within An Garda Síochána to investigate it and prosecute it. If we take the example of a child sexual abuse material investigation, there could be thousands of images over which biometric analysis could be performed.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for his amendment and Deputy Gannon for his contribution. As I said at the outset, the purpose of this legislation is to provide an additional tool to An Garda Síochána in order to expedite its investigations. This is not a tool that will be used for the purpose of putting evidence before a court to convict a person of a criminal offence. It is an instrument that will be of benefit to gardaí when they are going through very significant amounts of CCTV footage. As I said previously on Committee Stage, this amendment would, in my opinion, make the system incapable of effective operation. As I said, the gardaí will be assisted by this provision in sorting and filtering data in order that a human reviewer can narrow down avenues of investigation.”
“As Deputy Carthy will be aware, under section 3 of the 2023 Act, there is a provision that enables me to make regulations in respect of provisions contained within the legislation. Obviously, I cannot make regulations now in respect of an amendment that is not yet part of the legislation. Nonetheless, I am aware of the powers that I have under section 3. It is a matter that I will give consideration to, but we need to recognise that there are rules in place to deal with procurement. It is not appropriate to put this into primary legislation, such as the legislation we are dealing with here about the ability of An Garda Síochána to use biometric retrospective analysis. It would be inappropriate in that legislation to put in a provision that talks about with whom An Garda Síochána may enter into contracts.”
“Obviously, it has resulted in Israel having a negative view of Ireland on the basis that we are standing up for what we believe is a rules-based international system and ensuring we have an orderly resolution of disputes. Nonetheless, having said that, it would be inappropriate to include rules in respect of procurement in primary legislation. For that reason, I am adopting the same position as I did on Committee Stage, which is that I cannot accept these amendments.”
“In the case of any procurement of biometric technologies, there are requirements for providers and deployers of AI systems under the AI Act and An Garda Síochána will look to its European counterparts when engaging in the procurement process for best practice in the area. I am satisfied that the Garda will seek to advance ethical considerations when it comes to procurement processes as well. Deputy Carthy is seeking to target Israel because of the war crimes committed by it in Gaza and elsewhere. I agree with him when he says that this State, through its Government, has stood up to the criminal genocide in Gaza. That is correct.”
“There are mandatory exclusion grounds where a tenderer has been convicted of one or more of the following offences: participation in a criminal organisation; corruption; fraud; terrorist offences or offences linked to terrorist activities; money laundering or terrorist financing; child labour; human trafficking-related offences; and the breach of tax or social security obligations. Public procurement rules and regulations provide for a transparent, non-discriminatory process and there are sufficient rules and regulations in place in respect of existing guidelines. Procurement matters generally would not be a matter to be addressed in this Bill.”
“In particular, he wants to rule out An Garda Síochána entering into contracts with certain companies that are based in countries that have been adjudicated to have been involved in crimes against humanity or genocide. As I have said previously, however, procurement is governed by EU rules and national regulations and my view today is the same as it was when this matter came before us on Committee Stage, in that it would be inappropriate to duplicate these restrictions in primary legislation.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for these two amendments. We had an opportunity on Committee Stage to have a discussion on these amendments as well, but the Deputy is perfectly entitled to submit them again. As the Leas-Ceann Comhairle will be aware, the purpose of this legislation is to provide a facility for An Garda Síochána to engage in retrospective biometric analysis in terms of the work that it does and in terms of trying to speed up investigations for the purpose of identifying missing persons or locating individuals in a crowd when there is a large amount of CCTV footage. That is the primary purpose of this legislation. What the Deputy is seeking to do is to put into primary legislation rules on procurement.”
“Under my direction, work has begun on developing the fourth national strategy, which will maintain and build upon key achievements, actions, priorities and learnings from the zero-tolerance strategy. The bedrock of this process will be consultation and co-design with stakeholders in the sector so that their practical experiences, insights and expertise will inform every aspect of the strategy. Listening to Senators and hearing their contributions is also extremely important to me in formulating the strategy.”
“I suspect most of us in the Chamber are not aware of what is happening on the Internet but the level of violence online in pornography is completely distorting young people's view of sexuality for those who have seen it. There is a real obligation on us to ensure we do not allow that distorted perception of sexuality to dominate or influence how people's sexuality develops. Senator Clonan very sensibly referred to the obligations of the social media companies to try to ensure this type of information is kept away from children. My view is that when it comes to violent pornography and horrific scenes, we should be protecting everyone from that and not just children. I can tell the House there are issues I am considering in this regard.”
“Very many justice or home affairs ministers from other member states want to discuss with me how we are responding to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. That does not make me in any way complacent - it is a big issue - but the fact there is a lot going on here is probably the reason for the increase in reporting we are seeing. It is important we make this scourge as socially unacceptable as drink driving. We just need to get it out from behind closed doors and emphasise it will not be tolerated. That is why the courts and the legislation we are proposing are important. Another important and interesting topic is the impact that violent and extreme pornography is having on the development of the sexuality of young people, including teenage children and young men and women.”
“I have received reports in my Department that I believe will be advantageous to children in the family law context. Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union is commencing in July and I have made a decision that there will be, certainly at the informal meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in July, a very strong focus on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence against women and girls. Member states are busy transposing the new EU directive on combating violence against women in advance of next year's deadline. This is a huge body of work that will standardise measures across member states in respect of criminal offences, policy development, data collection and co-ordination. Ireland is ahead of most EU countries when it comes to the transposition of the obligations under this directive.”
“That is also why I was recently in Dundalk. Senator Comyn will probably think I am spending too much time in Louth. We recently had a cross-Border initiative with the PSNI and the teaching boards in County Down about Operation Encompass. We are putting this in legislation. It will ensure that where a child is affected by domestic violence, there is a timely, co-ordinated and child-centred response, including at their school. That is something we are progressing and there is great cross-Border co-operation on it. It will be advanced further. Another issue in respect of the courts is how we hear the voice of the child. It can be very difficult and challenging for the voice of the child to be heard but I have proposals on how that can be done.”
“As she mentioned, this was inspired by Jason Poole, whose sister Jennifer was murdered by a man who had a very serious conviction about which she knew nothing. We need to recognise that if people are convicted in our courts of serious offences, those offences are recorded in public and it is a public record that people should be able to access. I am facilitating that in the legislation that is being brought forward. It is also important to recognise children and young people are victims in their own right of domestic violence in the home. It is a hugely significant change that centres the specific needs of children and young people who, in the past, had primarily been identified as witnesses of abuse. They are not witnesses of abuse. Any child growing up in a house where there is domestic violence will be traumatised by that.”
“It will remove, in certain circumstances, guardianship rights from individuals convicted of killing the other parent of their child. As I have said previously, I commend Valerie French's brother David on his instrumental role in campaigning for this. I also secured Government approval for the drafting of the criminal justice (domestic violence register) Bill 2026. I have been given an assurance I will have a stamped copy of that in the next number of weeks. I will not tie down an exact date but it is coming and will certainly be introduced in the Houses before the summer recess. That will establish a publicly accessible domestic violence register of judgments, to be published by the Courts Service. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her great assistance in this.”
“This means the default position will be that counselling notes will not be disclosed, save for a very small number of cases where a judge, having looked at the counselling note, will say that note is relevant to the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. That is going to be a significant alteration of the law. It will apply not only to counselling notes but also to other sensitive records of a victim and their personal data, such as medical records, child protection records and other such documents. I believe I will bring Committee Stage of that Bill before the select committee on 19 May. As has also been mentioned, I secured Cabinet approval to publish the guardianship of infants (amendment) Bill 2026, sometimes referred to as Valerie's law. I will be introducing that legislation in Dáil Éireann on 21 May.”
“A number of Senators mentioned another important aspect of what we are doing, namely, trying to change the law. I come forward with the legislative proposals, as do many Senators and TDs, but ultimately it is the function of this House and the Dáil to determine whether they become law. As has been indicated, the Criminal Law and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026 was published in January and brings forward further amendments in relation to the disclosure of counselling notes. As was indicated by Senator Comyn, unfortunately we have got to a stage where counselling notes are routinely provided to the defence in prosecutions for rape or sexual assault. I am going to change that. I am going to introduce a statutory presumption of non-disclosure in respect of counselling notes.”
“Obviously one of the most visible commitments under the strategy is to see the opening up of new refuge centres. I was in Dundalk recently and turned the sod on one there. As Senator Clifford-Lee said, there is work being done in Balbriggan. In Cavan and Monaghan as well, there is now a plan to have a refuge in each place. I also had the benefit of being in Limerick with Senator Ryan. By the end of this year, the number of safe accommodation spaces will be substantially expanded. In addition, I have ensured we continue to invest significantly in expanding capacity and strengthening support services across the country. As has been indicated, I secured funding of almost €80 million under budget 2026 to support front-line critical services.”