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 3 of 84.
“We know, as the Taoiseach outlined, from evidence provided to the commission and statements made to the Garda that the allegations against Bill Kenneally span a much broader timeframe than those he was ultimately convicted for - almost a quarter of a century, in fact, in which children within his significant sphere of influence were at grave risk. While the criminal justice system belatedly caught up with Bill Kenneally, following an investigation that began only when Jason Clancy had the fearlessness to come forward in December 2012, he evaded justice for far too long and his death in prison does little to undo that failure. As the Taoiseach noted, one issue Mr. Justice White asked to be addressed is the absence of a criminal offence of "misconduct in public office".”
“and Monsignor Shine go beyond simple naivety and were an abject failure to do the job which the State had entrusted to those gardaí to do. In my recent meeting with the victims I acknowledged, and I accept fully, as Minister for justice, the finding in the report that action taken by the chief superintendent in Waterford was a clear and serious dereliction of duty, even by the standards applicable at that time. That misjudgment about Bill Kenneally's risk of reoffending undoubtedly led to further despicable, and preventable, abuse.”
“While I do not intend to repeat what has already been said, the Taoiseach has very clearly set down on the record of this House the litany of failures that occurred in the State's engagement with Bill Kenneally. As Minister for justice, however, the failures pertaining to An Garda Síochána weigh particularly heavily on me as I am politically responsible for the Garda. The failure in 1987 to investigate properly Bill Kenneally's crimes, the failure to arrest him and the failure to search his house for evidence that would certainly have seen him prosecuted are a stain on the history of An Garda Síochána. Standard Garda practices and protocols of the time were not followed, and attempts to deal with the matter informally through a psychiatric referral and by engaging with Billy Kenneally Snr.”
“I echo the remarks of the Taoiseach and every Deputy who has spoken in this debate this afternoon in acknowledging, first and foremost, the courage of the victims who have brought these failures of the State into the light. This report stands testament to the perseverance of both those who join us in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery this afternoon and those who have chosen to maintain their anonymity. The bravery of all the victims represents the foundations on which Mr. Justice White's report is built. I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to meet some of the victims in recent weeks, following the publication of the report. I apologised that day to the victims, and I repeat that apology today for the Dáil record and, indeed, extend it to all those victims who chose, understandably, to maintain their privacy and anonymity.”
“That is why it is important that in every case where there is any assessment of applicable records, not just counselling notes but all medical records as well, there will have to be a hearing where the court will look at them individually and say whether they should not be disclosed or that there is something in it that needs to be disclosed based on subsection (11) of what the Oireachtas said. I want to give people the opportunity to talk.”
“That issue is the routine disclosure of counselling notes to the accused in sexual offences trial and the unfair reliance upon them for the purpose of asking questions in respect of issues which are of no relevance to the underlying issue. A final issue is that of the waiver and the consent of the survivor. The main problem with the 2017 resolution was that it provided for the waiver and it meant that people decided not to go through any hearing where the counselling notes could be looked at and appraised by a court and, instead, they were routinely handed over. That is the reason for the removal of the waiver.”
“I am considerably shifting the balance, which at present is with the right to a fair trial. I am moving it considerably over to the right to privacy. I am going as far as I can. Sometimes when Ministers or politicians adopt a measure, they are uncertain of what the outcome will be. I am prepared to state publicly, and Senators will know in politics we are careful about saying things publicly, that I am very satisfied and believe that the statutory proposal and amendments I am introducing, along with the AM case in terms of what Mr. Justice Collins said at the Supreme Court, will resolve the issue that everyone in this House is concerned about.”
“So there can be disclosure of the counselling notes of the person being prosecuted where there are records corroborating that, in fact, he did tell his counsellor that he had sexually abused the woman concerned or had done something inconsistent with the narrative being advanced in the trial. That is why I say subsection (11) is a presumption against non-disclosure. I am conscious people may wish to come in on this. Regarding what I have to do here, ultimately this is a balancing act between the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial. I do not want to see, as Senator Andrews said is happening, that women have to determine whether to go for counselling or go to court. That is not an acceptable choice. I want people to be able to do both. I believe both will be readily available as a result of the solution I am bringing here.”
“It is obvious that the interests of justice are important in any case but the concern of this House is that is sort of vague and could be interpreted in a balancing way that would allow for notes to be disclosed, which are not probative as to the guilt or innocence of the accused but may be of some peripheral relevance. That is not how that will be interpreted. The way that will be interpreted and the reason the "interests of justice" are in is because, as Senator Harmon identified, there have been examples where counselling notes have been of use to the prosecution in criminal trials. They have been an advantage and used in terms of corroborating the account given by the survivor in a sexual offence trial. They also, I am aware, have been of use in terms of the counselling notes of an accused.”
“A judge looking at this, who will have access to a piece of evidence that may be contained within an applicable record, will have to satisfy himself or herself that if that is not handed over, there is a real risk of an unfair trial. That is a high threshold for any judge to have to overcome and is a high threshold in terms of what is in the content of the applicable record. Certainly, having listened to the examples of questions that were asked of Paula Doyle during her cross-examination, none of those questions would get over that hurdle. That is the first one about the risk of an unfair trial. The other issue people asked me was about the clause "it is otherwise in the interests of justice to so order".”
“It would be highly unusual if in the context of criminal proceedings we said that this category of evidence was never accessible and you could not look at it, whereas you can in the context of civil proceedings, where somebody's liberty is not at stake. I cannot ban counselling notes. On the other issue raised in terms of presumption, when it comes to the direction to the court, you do not disclose them "unless". The “unless” is first that the record is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial. That is not enough in itself. It also goes on to say, "one or both of the following apply ... there would be a real risk of an unfair trial in the absence of such disclosure".”
“If you look at civil law, people take actions against people for being damaged through their rape or sexual assault. In the context of those civil proceedings, where the remedy is damages, there is a process called discovery. In the discovery process, if I claim I have suffered severe mental trauma as a result of the actions of the defendant in a case, the defendant is entitled in the civil system to say they want to see discovery of my medical records. That happens every day in personal injuries actions. I would then have to swear an affidavit of discovery, which would discover any counselling notes I have.”
“If I were to bring in one of those provisions and introduced them, we know that within a short period it would be challenged in the courts by an individual who was either being prosecuted for a sexual offence or had been convicted of a sexual offence and they would claim that they could not get a fair trial because there was a category of evidence that they would say contained information that was relevant to their guilt or innocence and that the Oireachtas said they could not look at. I am enormously affected and influenced by what survivors say about the impact of this, but what would be worse for survivors would be if I introduced legislation that was ultimately declared to be unconstitutional because there is no category of evidence anywhere in our legal system where the law says you cannot look at that evidence.”
“The presumption is not to disclose this record. There is then the proviso "unless". Before I come to the "unless", I will deal with the amendments, which Sinn Féin have advocated and others are supporting, out of the best intentions I know, that we should simply ban counselling notes. I cannot do that because I have received unambiguous legal advice from the Attorney General that to do so would be unconstitutional.”
“What will happen under the new system is that there must be a court hearing adjudicated by the High Court or Circuit Court judge to look at and determine whether there should be any disclosure of the applicable record, which includes the counselling notes. When it comes to that, the presumption is set out in subsection (11) on page 27, which says, " A court shall not". That is what the Attorney General advises me. As somebody who has worked as a lawyer, that is what the presumption is. The court is being told it shall not do something: "A court shall not, after the hearing referred to in subsection (8), order disclosure of the content of the applicable record concerned to the accused, and where applicable, the prosecutor". Any judge looking at this will know the Oireachtas has told them they are not to disclose the applicable record.”
“I will not go through all of the detail because many people will have read it but one of the criticisms being made is to ask where the presumption of non-disclosure is. My answer is that it is in subsection (11) of the new section I am proposing to introduce. It is in subsection (11), which is on page 27 of the administrative reprint of the Bill. We know there is a procedure that will now have to be gone through. It is set out in the earlier sections of the Bill, "Where, in criminal proceedings for a sexual offence, the prosecutor or the accused is of the opinion that an applicable record ought to be disclosed ... the prosecutor or the accused ... shall make an application ... in writing, to the court setting out" the reasons. That is the first significant change that must happen. A written application has to be made to the court.”
“We thought in 2017, when I was also a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas, that this issue had been resolved. Unfortunately, it became readily apparent that it has not been resolved. I want the Senators to know that as Minister for justice I am not prepared to let the situation continue whereby counselling notes are provided routinely to the accused in sexual assault or rape cases and then used against complainants. I am not prepared to let that continue. It is for that reason that I have brought forward the amending legislation that is before the House today. I will look in due course at the amendments put forward by Senators, but I ask them to be aware of the significant changes I have proposed in Part 8 of this miscellaneous provisions Bill, and which will significantly amend section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992.”
“People advise me that I should steer clear of that or kick it to a committee, send it for further deliberations and not bother changing the law because I will be criticised for changing the law. They say I should let it go back to another committee to see what can be done. I was not prepared to do that. The reason I was not prepared to do that is because of the unacceptability of the current statutory regime. The type of cross-examination to which Paula Doyle was exposed is still permissible because we are operating under that same statutory regime. Senator Harmon mentioned the AM decision, which is a significant decision, but the decision is not in the context of the statutory regime, and the Oireachtas and all of us here who recognise the unfairness of what is happening have an obligation to ensure that this legislation is changed.”
“I think everyone in this House acknowledges that the current statutory position is unacceptable. Senators gave examples of how Paula Doyle was treated during the prosecution of her rapist. We need to recognise that happened under the statutory regime that is there at present, or which existed prior to the 2017 amendment, which we thought was going to resolve the matter. One thing that is absolutely sure is that the current statutory regime is unacceptable. We cannot allow the current statutory regime to remain. This is a contentious political issue and there are different views on it. Sometimes the advice given to politicians or Ministers like me who ultimately are the ones who have to make the decision and will be held responsible and accountable is to ask if we really need to make a decision about that now.”
“It is important for me, as Minister for justice, to state at the outset that victims and survivors such as Paula Doyle should not underestimate the impact they have on policymakers. It is important we all acknowledge that, and it is apparent from the contributions of Senators that survivors have had an impact on them and on their advocacy during the course of this debate. It is an extremely difficult issue. The great advantage of being an advocate with the passion Senators have is that they know absolutely what they want to achieve, and they look at it from the perspective of the voice they believe should be given the greatest say. I recognise that and commend them. From my point of view, I have to balance other factors as well. I will start by saying something I said on Committee Stage, and which is important to emphasise.”
“The reason I was in this House a couple of days ago discussing the domestic violence register legislation going through the Houses of the Oireachtas is the impact of the death and murder of Jennifer Poole, another victim. Her memory and the impact of what happened to her is influencing policymakers. The reason we were discussing and debating the Guardianship of Infants and Child Care (Amendment) Bill 2026 yesterday in this Chamber is Valerie French and the influence her murder had on her family and on us as on policymakers to recognise that area of the law needed to change. The reason we may later be discussing sex for rent legislation is because of the advocacy of Senator Harmon, who is advocating on behalf of other women who are the subject of what in effect is violence against them because of their gender.”
“I thank all Senators for the amendments. I acknowledge the extraordinarily powerful contributions I have just listened to. Sometimes Senators do not realise the impact of their speeches and the passion with which they speak. I want them to know I have been enormously impressed by it. I have listened carefully to what everyone has to say. I also acknowledge in the Gallery Paula Doyle and other survivors. I want to say to Paula and other survivors that you probably are not aware of the extent of the impact you have on policymakers such as myself and lawmakers such as Members of the Seanad. The reason we have been having this debate for the past three years, being frank, or more is because of the advocacy of people such as Paula Doyle and other survivors of sexual abuse.”
“They decide in respect of which areas it needs to be requested. If that happens, it has a political consequence as well on certain occasions, and it can be announced. This provision gives it even greater democratic legitimacy because it is elected and appointed Ministers and members of the Executive who will be involved. The section states that the Minister for Defence may "give general approval for the deployment of a member of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power for such class or classes of assistance as may be agreed with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration." When looking at aid in terms of the type of classes, the information we see is readily available in terms of the four preceding years and will continue to be available.”
“The Garda recognised that it did not have the vehicles necessary to remove the very large vehicles that were blocking critical infrastructure, including refineries. The Garda knew that the Defence Forces had the relevant equipment, namely large trucks. A chief superintendent in one region put in a request to the Defence Forces in another region seeking the use of those large trucks to remove vehicles. Subsequently, a response was received. That is how it operates. It operates on the basis of what is needed in the here and now. That is why a request for members of the Defence Forces to be present during the search for the remains of Michael Gaine was submitted. What we do not want to happen, I am sure, is for Senators and Deputies to be the people deciding whether or not the Garda needs to request information. Gardaí make the requests.”
“The Senator raised four points. First, the language that is used in respect of aid of the civil power is also used in section 90 of the 1954 Act. That is language that has been in place for over 60 years. Second, the reason new wording is being put in by way of legislation is to modernise it. The Defence Act 1954 is out of date. Everyone in the House will appreciate that there is a benefit in modernising a provision such as this. Third, the Senator is trying to suggest, although she did not state it, that the reason for this statutory provision is as a result of the fuel protests. As I said before, and as is publicly provable, this was announced by the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and discussed in March, way before there were any fuel protests. Fourth, we will use the protests as the example of when the provision was used.”
“I thank the Senator. I will be succinct in response. To date, all that information is being published on an annual basis in the Department of Defence and Defence Forces report. I suspect that most people in the Houses of the Oireachtas, this House and the Lower House, were not aware of that report or the level of detail within it. That level of detail will continue and that is recognising the importance of giving this information to the public. It is in the public domain already in the regulations that are there at present. There is nothing specifically about it having to be published. It will continue to be published into the future.”
“I have already stated the purpose of the new Part III and these reasons will still be valid in three years' time. I do not think we should be fearful about the fact that since the State was established, the Garda has requested, and the Defence Forces have provided, assistance in aid of the civil power. I believe everyone here thinks that should continue. All we are doing here is to put it on a statutory basis so the public and Oireachtas are aware of how these powers are operating, as opposed to the rather archaic system set out pursuant to the Defence Act from the 1950s.”
“23 and 24 in the names of Sinn Féin Senators and Senator Keogan, respectively. They propose reviews of the operation of Part III of the Act. There is a requirement in the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann for a post-enactment report, and indeed in the Standing Orders of Seanad Éireann. What these amendments seek to do is to place a statutory obligation on the Minister for Defence to produce a report within a year and to come back before the House. As Senators know, there is already that requirement to put a post-enactment report together and that is to be done within 12 months. Amendment No. 23 would provide that the new Part IIIA would cease to have effect after three years unless a resolution approving its continuation was passed.”
“This definition sets out the context in which deployments in aid of the civil power take place, which is that the requirement for assistance is identified by the Garda and a request is made for the assistance of the Defence Forces. The domestic internal security of the State is primarily the responsibility of my Department and the Garda. It is an operational matter, in the first instance, for the Garda to determine whether and in what context it would require assistance from the Defence Forces. The basis for the deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power is, therefore, clearly set out in the section and the question of the development and publication of guidelines in relation to deployment does not arise. I will move to amendments Nos.”
“In that regard, statistical information in relation to the deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power is provided by the Department of Defence on an annual basis in the report to which I just referred. This report, which contains detailed information relating to the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces, is laid before the Houses of Oireachtas. All that information is there, setting out the details as to how many times the aid of civil power operations has been requested and granted, and is available to the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is important to recall the definition of "aid of the civil power", which is set out in subsection (5) of the new section 40B. The definition refers to "assistance provided by the Defence Forces to An Garda Síochána under this section".”
“There may be other circumstances where the Garda requires the assistance of the Defence Forces and it should not be precluded from seeking that assistance simply because there is provision in legislation which states a list of things that can be done, such as I have read out, but not go any further. I will not be accepting amendment No. 18. I will turn to amendments Nos. 19 to 22, inclusive, in the names of Senators Higgins and Ruane. These amendments also relate to the amendments of the Defence Act as set out in Part 5, specifically section 40B to which I referred. The amendments relate to the publication of information relating to the aid of the civil power process.”
“I am sure that 15 or 20 years ago, a huge number of the requests were for cash-in-transit escorts. In 2024, there were only five such requests. As time progresses, the nature of threats changes and the number of threats increases, the circumstances of requests will vary as well. That is why it would be inappropriate to state in a piece of legislation that the Act shall not "be construed as conferring any new or additional power on the Minister to direct the deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power beyond those that exist apart from this Part". Those are powers that exist at present.”
“What is being proposed in the new section 40B of the Defence Act 1954 is that the new section will provide for substantive change to the current legislative framework under which members of the Defence Forces may be deployed in aid of the civil power. This is necessary to ensure the provisions are appropriately set out within the Defence Act for this important role of the Defence Forces. It is beneficial to the public and to the Oireachtas that it is set out clearly what will be proposed in the future. Amendment No. 18 provides that "[n]othing in this Part shall be construed as conferring any new or additional power on the Minister to direct the deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power". I have given a list of examples of deployments. Obviously, circumstances will change.”
“At present, the way it happens is that a C70 form is sent by An Garda Síochána to the Defence Forces in circumstances where gardaí need the assistance of the Defence Forces. I gave the example on Committee Stage of how the search for the missing remains of Mike Gaine required the Garda to seek the assistance of the Defence Forces. That was a perfect example of where such a request was necessary. In respect of amendment No. 18 from Senator McCormack and her colleagues, it is acknowledged that the regulations are in need of modernisation. Those provisions have been there for more than 60 years.”
“It provides all the detail as to the numbers of requests made by An Garda Síochána and the type of activity requested. There is nothing sinister or unusual about it. I gave the figure for the requests last year, and it was a significant number. The report that comes out on an annual basis specifies the type of assistance given, including Garda air support unit missions, Central Bank patrols, airport security duties, explosives production security, Central Bank security, prisoner escorts, explosive ordnance disposal call-outs, explosive materials escorts, Naval Service diving operations, cash-in-transit escorts, hospital security, VIP visit security, search operations, and Air Corps and Naval Service support. That information is available. It is not being hidden.”
“Senator McCormack stated that the Bill includes a whole series of unrelated matters. That is the function of a miscellaneous provisions Bill. "Miscellaneous" means there are unrelated matters linked together. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, was very clear on Committee Stage in the Dáil that the purpose here is to set out in primary legislation, namely, the Defence Act, the circumstances under which An Garda Síochána or the Minister can request the assistance of the Defence Forces and-or the Minister for Defence in aid of the civil power in respect of work that is done by gardaí. As I said on Committee Stage in this House, the annual report of the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces sets out the aid-to-civil-power operations.”
“I thank all the Senators for their contributions. Senator McCormack asked why this is being done now. There really is no surprise in the Bill's introduction. It has been proposed for some time. It is designed to ensure that the system in place at present, based on regulations that are approximately 60 years old, is modernised. As I said earlier in respect of another provision within this miscellaneous provisions Bill, it is preferable that details in terms of the exercise of important powers are set out in primary legislation. The Defence Act 1954 contains a section dealing with aid to the civil power. However, it is generally the regulations made under that provision that specify the associated functions in terms of An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces.”
“Currently, section 14 amends the 2019 Act to provide that the Chief Justice may nominate another judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Circuit Court or District Court to perform his or her functions as an ex-officio member of the board and of the judicial conduct committee rather than just a judge of the Supreme Court, as is currently the case. The proposed amendments provide for the revocation at any time of a nomination to act as chair of the board of the judicial conduct committee. They also substitute certain references to "nominate" with "nominate in writing" to align with existing provisions in the 2019 Act.”
“8 proposes to substitute section 12 to, in addition to the matters I have set out, also provide that the Chief Justice may separately nominate another judge of the committee as chair of the Superior Courts rules committee and to provide that such nomination may be revoked at any time. Amendments Nos. 9 to 17, inclusive, amend section 14 of the Bill, which itself amends sections 12 and 44 of the Judicial Council Act, which provide for membership of the board of the Judicial Council and the judicial conduct committee.”
“Currently, section 12 of the Bill amends section 67 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936 which provides for the Superior Courts rules committee to allow the Chief Justice to nominate an ordinary judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or High Court to take his or her place on the committee. It also reduces the number of ordinary judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on the committee from two judges from each court to one. These changes are being introduced to try to reduce the very significant non-judicial workload of the Chief Justice. Amendment No.”
“That is a positive development. Maybe I am wrong but I think Senators welcome that. The point here is, "Yes, but we want more." I had referred to the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill. We have enough on our plate here dealing with the miscellaneous provisions Bill without me going down an avenue talking about the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill but since Senator McDowell invited me down there, I will go down there briefly. In terms of the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill, there is information that is recorded when gardaí stop and search a person, but if, after a stop and search, the garda is required to get information about the nationality or religion of an individual, it turns the whole process into something much more complex. However, we will return to that when we come back to the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill.”
“In fairness, this will be a positive development. I should not try to speak for other Senators but it is the case that, in the context of the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026, Senators wanted to see more information available within the criminal justice system so as we can identify information about people who are interacting with the criminal justice system and people who are convicted. The information that will now be generated as a result of adding the Garda and the Courts Service to Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act will mean that all that information that the Garda and Courts Service have can be shared, for instance, with the Central Statistics Office, and information will become available in respect of individuals who are convicted, and, indeed, prosecuted, of certain criminal offences.”
“The advantage of this is that we will now get a significant amount of data that will enable us to do research, so the type of information that Senators McDowell and Ruane wanted will be readily available.”
“It was determined that the PPSN would be the most reliable and secure basis for a unique identifier and would provide significant advantages for both the criminal justice system and its users. Criminal justice agencies already have the capacity to gather a significant amount of personal information for purposes of investigation and prosecution. Allowing them to access the PPSN will simply allow that information to be more accurately and easily transferred within compliant data sharing norms. This is a significant amendment. I listened to Senators McDowell and Ruane when I was dealing with the Garda powers Bill to try to have a provision within that Bill that would require gardaí to record the nationality of individuals who come before An Garda Síochána or come within the criminal justice system.”
“The lack of a single system-wide identifier makes the authentication of identities and records, and the collection and sharing of data, much more time and labour intensive. It also increases the possibility of misidentifications and other mistakes occurring. This amendment will therefore help to address the administrative and operational issues I have just mentioned while also supporting community safety. The development of a unique identifier for the criminal justice system is a programme for Government commitment following a thorough policy review and consultation with relevant stakeholders including victims' representatives and human rights organisations.”
“99 proposes to further amend the Schedule by adding the Director of Public Prosecutions and to remove the current restriction on the Garda whereby the Garda is specified, but only in relation to its own members. The amendment will mean that all operational criminal justice agencies can, within the legal and governance parameters laid down in the 2005 Act, use PPSN in order to be sure of the identities of persons who are going through the criminal justice system or who are availing of services such as vetting and firearms licensing. Critically, it will also facilitate the development of a unique identifier across the criminal justice system. Currently, most criminal justice agencies use their own separate identifiers.”
“Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 amend section 14 of the Bill, which provides for the commencement. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 amend section 14 to provide for the following provisions of the Bill to come into effect on enactment; subsections 1 and 4 of section 1, section 4(b)(i), section 49, section 75 insofar as it relates to the Courts Service, section 76, section 80 and Parts 3, 4 and 5. Amendment No. 99 relates to an amendment to Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule. Other operational criminal justice agencies, such as the Irish Prison Service, the Probation Service and Forensic Science Ireland, being under the aegis of my Department, are already specified bodies under the Schedule. The Legal Aid Board is also a specified body. Amendment No.”
“Amendment No. 100 makes a number of technical amendments to the miscellaneous provisions Act 2020 that are consequential on or necessary to ensure consistency with amendments elsewhere relating to the use of electronic technology in certain court proceedings. It also repeals two redundant provisions of the 2020 Act. Those provisions are inoperable because in reality the Courts Service when sourcing any such equipment is bound by specific budgetary and procurement frameworks. A court can therefore only use such technology as is available to it on that basis. Amendment No. 101 amends the criminal justice perjury Act. This is a purely consequential amendment to take account of the proposed insertion in this Bill of a provision for statements of truth in criminal and international co-operation proceedings. Amendment No.”
“Biometric analysis is used for the purpose of identifying the persons concerned and there are provisions in the legislation that allow for the search of luggage for the purpose of establishing identity. A huge amount of information is available to the European Union in respect of persons coming to the Union claiming asylum. That is important to record. Senator McDowell also spoke about data retention. A number of decisions of the CJEU have overturned the legal instruments in place for the purpose of data retention with the European Union. One of my ambitions as Ireland takes over the Presidency is to see if we can get another legal instrument put in place. Data retention, irrespective of your views, is essential for the purpose of investigating serious criminal activity.”
“On my second day as chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union, I think the Senator is being slightly unfair to the European Union. Obviously, when it comes to passenger name record data, that information is not available for the purpose of immigration issues. There is a completely separate system, however, that records details and information in respect of any person claiming international protection within the EU, and that is the Eurodac system. It is now much more advanced than it was when introduced in 2003. Anyone who applies for asylum in Ireland will have their fingerprints taken. They will have photographs taken.”