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 4 of 84.
“In the situation that arose, unless the person had been on a watch list and had previously committed a serious offence, then the information on the person would not be readily available. The information in passenger name record data cannot be used for the purpose of immigration offences. If an individual comes into Ireland and we have the PNR data - if they come in on an internal flight we will get that information in respect of the commission of serious offences, that is, if the person is on a watch list for serious offences - the data, however, will not be a tool that can be used for the purpose of identifying violations of our immigration laws because they do not meet the threshold of seriousness in terms of the penalty imposed to get them onto the PNR system.”
“The person had flown from Luxembourg or France – I think it was Luxembourg – on an internal EU flight from Luxembourg to Dublin where the person claimed asylum and the next day went to Northern Ireland and claimed asylum there. Senator McDowell raises this issue because he wonders, if after this legislation comes in and it applies to internal EU flights, we will then have a record of the data in respect of individuals such as the person who was highlighted in his example. The short answer is we will have the data but it will not be accessible because, as he will know in respect of passenger name record data, that can only be used for offences where people are on a watch list and – in respect of serious offences – where a penalty could potentially imposed of up to three years or more.”
“Second, it is preferable if rules relating to passenger name records are in primary legislation, as opposed to the secondary legislation - the statutory instrument - that has existed to date. Back in 2018 when the regulations were introduced, there was no debate in any House of the Oireachtas about it; it was just signed by the Minister of the day, so there is a benefit in having it in primary legislation. There has been some Oireachtas debate in respect of it, in contrast to it being by way of secondary legislation. Senator McDowell asked questions in respect of the person who is being charged with an offence in Northern Ireland. This information was revealed at the time.”
“I thank the Senator for his contribution. I take on board his comment that there are a lot of amendments in respect of the passenger name record data. I will make two points in my defence. First, many of the provisions being put forward on Report Stage simply replicate what is in the 2018 regulations. Passenger name records are not something new to Irish law. Provision for them has been in secondary legislation since 2018, applying as it does to extra-EU flights. I listened to the concerns expressed by Senators McDowell and Higgins about these provisions being introduced on Report Stage. However, this is not something that is desperately new. It has been there for the past eight years.”
“The offences must fit a crime category prescribed by the directive and have a maximum prison sentence of at least three years. Schedule 3 lists the competent authorities in the State that can request PNR data. The Minister can add to Schedules 3 and 4 by way of order but only within the parameters of the definition of "competent authority" and "serious crime" in the EU directive. Amendment No. 4 simply amends the Long Title consequential on these amendments.”
“In line with the EU court judgment, PNR data transferred to the PIU from airlines can be retained for six months, after which the Irish PIU normally must delete it. Amendments Nos. 91 to 97, inclusive, insert Chapter 7 of Part 18, which deals with transitional provisions. Collectively, the amendments ensure that various actions, processes and requests undertaken just before the coming into operation of the new Part will continue to have a lawful basis and can seamlessly transfer to the new provisions. Amendments Nos. 102 to 104, inclusive, insert Schedules 2 to 4, inclusive, which relate to Part 18. Schedule 2 defines the data categories that make up PNR data, as set out in the EU PNR directive. Schedule 4 lists the offences under Irish law that meet the definition of "serious crime" in the PNR directive.”
“80 refers to airlines' obligations to transfer PNR data to the PIU a day before take-off and when doors shut in preparation for departure. Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 refer to the process undertaken by the PIU of assessing the transferred PNR data against serious crime or terrorism watch lists and predetermined criteria to identify persons of interest due to take the flight or go on board. Amendments Nos. 83 to 88, inclusive, deal with requests for PNR data held by the PIU from competent authorities in the State, PIUs in other EU countries, Europol and third countries, as well as requests by the Irish PIU to a PIU of another member state. Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 insert Chapter 6 of Part 18. It deals with the retention periods for PNR data and maintenance of documentation by the PIU.”
“76 sets out the Data Protection Commission's oversight function as regards this legislation. Amendments Nos. 77 to 79, inclusive, insert Chapter 4 of Part 18. This chapter provides for the designation by the PIU of individual intra-EU flights, which will be encompassed by the State's PNR regime. An intra-EU flight can be designated for up to six months when considered necessary. Amendment No. 79 provides for a designation of all intra-EU flights unilaterally when the State is faced with a genuine present or foreseeable terrorist threat. That can only be done on approval by the High Court, which means there is judicial supervision of this statutory provision. Amendments Nos. 80 to 88, inclusive, insert a new Chapter 5 in Part 18 dealing with the transfer and exchange of PNR data. Amendment No.”
“68 to 73, inclusive, insert Chapter 2, which relates to the Irish passenger information unit, its director, protection officer and other staff and its obligations. They very much replicate what is in the 2018 PNR regulations while providing for the continuation of the PIU's current staff, notwithstanding the revocation of the 2018 regulations. Amendments Nos. 74 to 76, inclusive, insert Chapter 3 of Part 18. Amendment No. 74 provides for the competent authorities designated under the 2018 regulations to remain so designated under this Part. They are the law enforcement agencies such as An Garda Síochána. Amendment No. 75 provides that the Minister may designate a person as the independent authority. The main function of the authority will be approving PNR requests. Amendment No.”
“The directive allows member states, as an option, to apply the directive to intra-EU flights. Ireland is the only member state bound by the directive that does not yet apply its PNR regime to intra-EU flights. The purpose of these amendments is to put it on a statutory basis in the first instance. Previously, it was dealt with through secondary legislation, that is, statutory instrument. The second purpose is to apply the PNR regime to internal EU flights. This will plug a significant gap in our security infrastructure. Amendments Nos. 63 to 67, inclusive, insert Chapter 1 of Part 18. These are standard legislative proceedings. They refer to a definitions section and other matters. Amendments Nos.”
“They are the State agencies for which the acronym "PIUs" is sometimes used. The transferred PNR data is then compared by PIUs against watch lists, databases and other criteria before take-off and landing to detect suspicious travel patterns and identify serious criminals and terrorists. Where identification occurs, the related PNR data is referred on to the appropriate law enforcement authorities for further examination. Ireland transposed the PNR directive in 2018 through the EU PNR data regulations, whereby a PIU was established in the Department of justice. The regulations apply the regime only to what are referred to as non-EU flights or extra-EU flights, as required by the directive. They are flights between Ireland and countries outside the EU.”
“These amendments will make our courts system much more efficient and will ensure gardaí and prison officers do not need to spend an inordinate amount of time generating documents and will now be able to transmit them electronically. Amendments Nos. 63 to 97, inclusive, and Nos. 102 to 104, inclusive, make up the vast bulk of the Report Stage amendments. They relate to passenger name record data. I am proposing to insert a new Part 18 into the Bill. Passenger name record data, PNR, consists of booking information provided by passengers that is collected by airlines. It is used widely as a law-enforcement tool. There is a directive from 2016 which Ireland opted into to which we are bound. That established a regime that mandated the transfer of PNR data by airlines to national passenger information units.”
“They have the potential to generate substantial time and cost savings and other efficiencies for court users generally but also for agencies such as the Prison Service or the Garda which at present must spend considerable amounts of time getting affidavits and declarations sworn and delivering documents to and collecting them from the courts. These may include charge sheets, bench warrants and committal warrants. Under these amendments it will be possible for such documents to be generated electronically and transmitted between the courts and other agencies in real time, thereby obviating the need for costly and time-consuming manual transmission, delivery, collection of documents and retranscription of data. This will have significant benefits also for data accuracy and security.”
“I will briefly deal first with amendments Nos. 60 to 62, inclusive. They comprise a new Part 17 that concerns electronic technology in certain proceedings. Amendment No. 60 inserts a new section into the Bill to define the types of proceedings in question, including criminal proceedings and relevant proceedings under various international co-operation enactments. Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 insert new sections into the Bill to provide, respectively, that court rules may, in relation to such proceedings, make provision for the electronic transmission in documents in such proceedings and for electronic statements of truth in lieu of sworn declarations. These amendments are modelled on equivalent legislation that is already in place in civil proceedings.”
“I do not need to do that. If we start going into that type of statutory drafting, we will then have to cover every possible situation. We are not going to set out in law all the types of behaviour which are lawful. That is not the purpose of the criminal law. We proscribe the behaviour that is unlawful, and that is what this provision does. I think it does it in a responsible way. Coming back to the point I started with, I commend Senator Higgins on taking into consideration the position of the alleged perpetrator who may be subject to prosecution, if the legislation is enacted, but I also have to take into account those people who are affected, the people who may be intimidated and the people who are intimidated by people wearing face coverings. I cannot ignore them.”
“If people want to wear a face covering at a protest, because they do not want to be identified, they can, of course, still wear it. In fact, people can wear a face covering in any situation they want to, but if they are wearing a face covering and there is a "reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons or the safety of property or for the maintenance of public peace", and the face covering is being worn with the "intent to intimidate another person, or in a manner that is likely to intimidate another person", that triggers the offence. One of the issues Senator Higgins raised with me was why I did not put into the legislation that it shall not be a criminal offence for somebody to wear a face covering for religious observance reasons, health reasons or to disguise their identity for legitimate reasons to do with their employment.”
“I will explain the reason the wording, "in a manner that is likely to intimidate another person", is there. If that provision was in existence in Northern Ireland, it might have been possible to say, in terms of when people went out on their race riots, that they acted with "intent to intimidate another person, or ... in a manner that is likely to intimidate another person". I believe both those aspects would be necessary to cover the type of racial intimidation operating then. If people want to wear a face covering for health reasons, then they can, of course, continue to wear it because they are intimidating nobody. If people want to wear a face covering for religious observance reasons, then, of course, they are permitted to wear it because they are intimidating nobody.”
“As I repeatedly say, when the courts come to interpret this provision, and it will be the court interpreting it, it will be the words that we have decided to put into the statutory provision that will be the sole mechanism of the courts in determining and interpreting the statute. In the first instance, there has to be a "reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons or the safety of property or for the maintenance of public peace". That has to be there as a sine qua non . There must also be the following. The person must be "wearing the face covering on his or her face ... with intent to intimidate another person, ... or in a manner that is likely to intimidate another person". I do not see the types of issues the Senator has with this because of the language here.”
“As I said at the outset, of course people will still be entitled to wear face coverings. I do not need to put that in this legislation. There is not a provision in legislation which says what is permissible. All we do in legislation which prescribes criminal offences is set out the behaviour that is not permissible. It is clearly the case that anyone who wishes to wear a face covering for health reasons, religious observances or privacy reasons or, as I said to the Senator, because they are at a protest and they do not want their employer to know that they are at a protest, will be able to continue.”
“They were in the business of intimidating people because of their race. It was reprehensible activity. If something is happening in Northern Ireland, it does not mean that it will not happen here. There is a prospect that it could happen. Whether it is intimidation from the far right, as was in the case of Northern Ireland, or intimidation from the far left is irrelevant. We need to recognise, regrettably, that there are people who will use face coverings for the purposes of trying to intimidate people and, as is required in this legislation, would "give rise to a reasonable apprehension" on the part of a garda that the "safety of persons or the safety of property or ... the maintenance of public peace" is compromised. Senator Higgins mentioned a number of reasons people wear face coverings.”
“I thank Senator Higgins for her contribution. At the outset can I say that when it comes to the extension of a public order offence or, indeed, any offence, one of the things I must do, and indeed all legislators must do, is, on the one hand look at the position, as Senator Higgins has, of the alleged perpetrator - the person who may end up being prosecuted for this new offence. That certainly has to be taken into account. Similarly, I as Minister in particular, have to take into account a person who is affected at present by the fact that there is no such provision in our legal system. I refer Senator Higgins to the protest that happened in Northern Ireland a number of weeks ago where racial minorities were targeted by mobs of people who went around wearing masks on their faces to disguise their identity.”
“2 amends the Long Title, consequential on these amendments. There are two amendments in this group, the first of which is Deputy Carthy's amendment that I was happy to accept. It will now mean that not just in the cases of serious sexual offences will character evidence have to be given on affidavit or in person; it will now apply to all indictable convictions. Second is the amendment to the public order legislation, which I believe is necessary. I want Senators to be aware that it is limited to the circumstances where a face covering is being worn for the purpose of intimidating others.”
“Obviously, those constitutional rights must be exercised in a manner which respects the rights of others and the maintenance of public order. Where a face covering has been worn as part of intimidating conduct, in circumstances that threaten public peace or public safety, An Garda should have a clear statutory power to intervene before matters escalate further. Sometimes even Members of the Oireachtas can find themselves being intimidated by people who are wearing face coverings. In such circumstances, we should not say that the law has no remedy against that intimidation. The remedy I am proposing is that the gardaí should be able to direct the person to remove the face covering. If they do not remove it, that is an offence. It gives no power to An Garda to start forcibly removing it. Amendment No.”
“They may do so for medical reasons, religious observance or cultural practice or simply as a matter of personal choice. I am also aware that at protests people may want to wear face coverings to hide their identity, if they did not want, for instance, their employer to know that they were at a particular protest. Nothing in this amendment changes that position. The mere wearing of a face covering does not in any way trigger the exercise of this power. It only arises when it is being worn for the purpose of seeking to intimidate another person. I also recognise the constitutional importance of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Those rights are fundamental and nothing in the amendment interferes with that.”
“The requirement for reasonable cause is an established safeguard in criminal law, requiring objectively justifiable grounds that are capable of judicial scrutiny. The amendment deliberately does not confer statutory power on An Garda Síochána to forcibly remove a face covering. I concluded that a more appropriate and proportionate approach was to rely upon the established model of a lawful Garda direction, with an offence arising only where a person without lawful authority or reasonable excuse fails to comply. The 1994 Act already contains provisions under which gardaí may issue lawful directions in defined public order situations. This amendment follows that established legislative approach rather than creating a fundamentally new policing model. I fully recognise that many people wear face coverings for entirely legitimate reasons.”
“The amendment provides that where a member of An Garda suspects, with reasonable cause, that a person is acting in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable apprehension for public safety or the maintenance of public peace, and that the person is wearing a face covering with the intention of intimidating another person or in a manner likely to intimidate another person, the garda may direct that person to desist from that conduct, remove the face covering and leave the vicinity. Only where a person without lawful authority or reasonable excuse fails to comply with that lawful Garda direction does an offence arise. It is a very high statutory threshold. A garda must suspect that both statutory conditions are satisfied before any direction may be given.”
“39 inserts a new part into the Bill to amend the 1994 Act in order to address a specific public order issue, which is the deliberate use of face coverings for intimidatory purposes in public places, and particularly at protests. I stress that this is not a ban on face coverings or a ban on wearing face coverings at protests, and neither does it create a general power for members of An Garda to require a person wearing a face covering in public to remove it. Instead, it is a limited addition to the public order framework, which may be exercised only in specific circumstances and with statutory safeguards.”
“36 deletes the existing section 23, with amendment No. 38 inserting in its place a new stand-alone provision of the Bill, which is substantively the same, but is more precisely drafted and contains a transitional provision. As it applies to all indictable offences, amendment No. 38 has the effect of superseding Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the sexual offences Act, which provides that character evidence for sentencing in indictable sexual offences shall be on oath or by affidavit. Amendment No. 37 therefore repeals that provision in order to prevent duplication on the Statute Book and to avoid confusion in practice. I will now turn to the amendment of the public order Act. Amendment No.”
“Amendments Nos. 2 and 36 to 39, inclusive, are amendments relating to character evidence which were put forward by Deputy Carthy on Committee Stage in the Dáil and which I said I would consider. I did not accept them on Committee Stage. I considered them and I accepted them on Report Stage. What happened on Report Stage is we have inserted, through Deputy Carthy's amendment, a new section into the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to provide that where a person is convicted of an indictable offence, character evidence for sentencing purposes must be given on oath or by affidavit. That amendment was included as section 23 of the Bill. The purpose of amendments Nos. 36 to 38, inclusive, is to address a number of drafting and consequential matters identified arising from section 23. Amendment No.”
“It is because this offence is prosecuted and presumptive drug testing done by An Garda Síochána is used for these prosecutions. Some District Courts accept it, others do not and it is seen to be more appropriate that it is put on a legislative basis. That is why it is there in respect of section 3. I will look in due course to see whether it can or needs to be extended to other provisions within the Misuse of Drugs Acts, but that is the reason it is being used.”
“What this is doing is it is giving statutory recognition to presumptive drug testing and if it is the case that somebody wants to challenge it, they can say they do not accept that presumption. The contrary can be proven. That is in the legislation as well. It is not as though, as a result of the certificate, it necessarily then becomes proven completely that that is the drug. If somebody disputes it and says the substance is not cocaine but flour, obviously that will still be established in the court.”
“The Government supports a health-led approach. A health-led approach, however, does not necessarily mean that there has to be decriminalisation of drugs for personal use. A lot of work is being done, along with my colleagues in the Department of Health, to ensure that health-led approach is central to how the State responds to the scourge of addiction. At the same time, we need to ensure that we have laws in place. On section 3, I know there are other provisions to deal with the issue. However, we need to recognise that there are organised drugs gangs that are seeking to prey on people's vulnerabilities and addictions and that is something that cannot be omitted. The fact of the matter is that in most cases involving drugs, there is a recognition that the drugs are cannabis, cocaine or heroin.”
“Ultimately, while many people do plead guilty, if people are not pleading guilty, there needs to be some mechanism to determine what, in fact, the substance is.”
“I have respect for what the Oireachtas committee has said but I did not want to fool Deputy Gannon or Senator Higgins as to my views, which are the views I expressed last night and that I am now expressing here. I am conscious that there is a much bigger debate to be had about the decriminalisation of drugs. I have no doubt that debate will be held in this House and the other House. To return to the amendment, there is nothing in it that is inconsistent with the recommendation of the Oireachtas committee report, even if I did support it. This amendment seeks to give statutory recognition to the Garda presumptive drug testing that goes on at present and that operates in courts. If it is put on a statutory basis, the system will become more efficient.”
“However, as I mentioned last night, the effect of that policy would be that you would see more drug-taking in public. I have a responsibility not only to the people who are taking drugs, but also to the majority of the population who do not take drugs, particularly children. If it was the case that the law the Senator is advocating was introduced and if there were people taking heroin outside a school or snorting cocaine in a public park, there would be nothing gardaí could do about it. You could not go up to a person, tell them to move on and ask them not to take heroin outside of a primary school. There would be nothing gardaí could do.”
“I am happy to accept that point. I thought that was clearly the point I was making. However, as I said to Deputy Gannon last night, the reason I am opposed to this recommendation is the same reason that British Columbia, which introduced decriminalisation of drugs for personal use in 2021, and Oregon, which introduced it in 2020, are now reversing those measures. The reason these jurisdictions are now reversing those measures relates to a point the Oireachtas committee made in its report, which is that one of the consequences of decriminalising drugs for personal use is that you will see wider use of drugs in public places. In fairness to the Oireachtas committee, it said that. The report goes on to say that, in order to deal with that, local authorities need to play a role.”
“I indicated to the Deputy that, notwithstanding the great respect I have for the committee and the work that has been done, I do not agree with that. In her speech, the Senator has said that the public is telling us that the use of drugs should be decriminalised under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. These Houses are the public. It is the Dáil and the Seanad that determine what the law in this country should be. It is for that reason that we legitimately refer to ourselves as the elected representatives of the Irish people. We could have a lengthy debate here. I realise it is a legitimate policy position for people such as Senator Higgins, Senator Ruane or Deputy Gannon to put forward that we should decriminalise all drugs. That is not the----”
“Last night, I had the opportunity to discuss the joint committee's report with the committee's Chairman, Deputy Gannon, in the Dáil when answering questions to the Minister for justice. I started by stating that I welcome the work that has been done by the committee. It made 161 recommendations. I agree with the vast majority of them. However, the issue that has got a lot of attention and the issue Deputy Gannon wanted my view on is what he described as the "central recommendation" of the Oireachtas committee, the decriminalisation of all drugs, that is, not just cannabis and cocaine but also heroin and synthetic drugs. Deputy Gannon has said this was the central recommendation of the Oireachtas committee.”
“The reason this is advantageous is that it will free up a lot of time for Forensic Science Ireland with regard to prosecutions taking place under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. There is a benefit to recognising in statute the fact that presumptive drug testing by An Garda Síochána is acceptable in those types of prosecutions. That is the purpose of the statutory provision I am seeking to introduce here this afternoon. Senator Higgins went on to discuss a related issue and asked why I am facilitating prosecutions under section 3 if it is the case that there is a consensus that we are now going to go with the recommendations of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Drugs Use and no longer criminalise drugs under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.”
“It is used in some District Court and Circuit Court proceedings at present. However, the Judiciary in some courts says that there is no statutory basis for the presumptive drug tests carried out by An Garda Síochána to be accorded the status of evidence within the prosecution of an offence. It is for that reason and that reason alone that this provision is being introduced. It will provide statutory recognition that the presumptive drug testing carried out by An Garda Síochána can be relied upon for the purposes of prosecution. Like all evidence advanced by the prosecution, it will be possible to rebut this evidence and it will be open to challenge by the accused.”
“I thank Senator Higgins for her contribution. At the outset, I will identify the purpose of the amendment I am proposing on Report Stage. It is to facilitate, to speed up and to make more efficient prosecutions within our courts. For instance, if there is a prosecution relating to 10 g of cocaine, an issue to be determined by the court is whether the substance that is alleged to be cocaine is in fact cocaine or whether it is simply sugar or flour. For the purposes of that prosecution, it is obviously essential that there is objective evidence in respect of the substance to confirm whether it is a controlled drug under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. There are a number of ways of doing that. At present, An Garda Síochána operates presumptive drug testing, supervised by Forensic Science Ireland. This is effective and reliable.”
“1 and 3 amend the Long Title, consequential to addition of the amendment to the 1984 Act to the Bill and the consequential amendment of the 2014 Act.”
“However, under subsection (3) there is a provision for me as Minister, having consulted with the director of FSI, to prescribe other controlled drugs should suitable test kits become available. Subsection (6) provides interpretation for the provision. The amendment also amends subsection 10(1) of the 1984 Act, consequential on the inclusion in subsection (6) of the definition of "Forensic Science Ireland". Amendment No. 41 inserts a new section into the Bill to amend section 144 of the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014 to allow the director of FSI to delegate his or her functions under the amended section 10 of the 1984 Act to appropriate officers of FSI. Amendments Nos.”
“A number of safeguards are built into the provision, reflecting current operational procedure. Subsection (2) limits the scope of the provision to the section 3 offence. The certificates must be completed by approved members of the Garda who have been certified under subsection (5) by the director of FSI following the completion of FSI-delivered training where they have demonstrated competency in administration of the tests. The PDT test kits used by members of the Garda must be approved by the director of FSI under subsection (4). The definition of "relevant controlled drug" limits the scope of the provision to cannabis, cannabis resin and cocaine.”
“Amendment No. 25 inserts a new section into the Bill to amend section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984. It inserts new subsections (2) to (6) into section 10 to provide the statutory basis for the admissibility of certificates of results of Garda-administered presumptive drug testing, PDT. It introduces a legal presumption in favour of the evidential value of such certificates, subject to rebuttal evidence. PDT was introduced by Garda circular in 2011 with the agreement of the DPP. It is used to test cannabis, cannabis resin and cocaine seized in relation to the section 3 offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Forensic Science Ireland, FSI, provides oversight of the Garda PDT regime and is assured of the reliability of the results of Garda-administered PDT.”
“We have a good length of time here this afternoon and we will get through a lot of work. Again, I commend the Senators on their diligence and hard work when it comes to dealing with difficult legislation.”
“Deputy Carthy introduced an amendment on Committee Stage. I said I thought it was a good idea and agreed to adopt it. I did adopt it on Report Stage in Dáil Éireann. Now I am bringing forward an amendment to it here just to tidy it up to ensure there is a consistent provision. We have taken out the provision in the sexual offences Act and now there will just be one provision, which states that anyone who wants to give character evidence on behalf of anyone convicted of an indictable offence will have to do it by way of oral evidence or an affidavit and can be subject to cross-examination. I think it is very good amendment and I am happy to support it. As I said, I have supported amendments from other Opposition Members and will do so again. There is also the issue of drug certification which we will come to discuss.”
“I think it is a progressive move that we will be able to discuss and debate it here. There are three other substantive areas to the amendments. The first relates to face coverings. It was indicated at the very early stage in Dáil Éireann that this would be coming. We will have a debate on this in due course this afternoon. It is not seeking to outlaw face coverings in respect of people who have health issues or religious observances that they want to comply with. It is seeking to give a power to An Garda Síochána to direct the removal of a face covering if a garda believes that has been done for the purpose of intimidating others. Further to what Senator McCormack said, I am always happy to accept good amendments from the Opposition. I have done it before in respect of Senator Harmon.”
“I thank Senators for their contributions. I will start with the last point made by Senator Higgins. I hope Senators realise that I have great respect for the role and mandate of Seanad Éireann. I actually enjoy being here listening to Senators, and discussing and debating legislation. It is correct that a large number of amendments are coming on Report Stage but they relate predominantly to the passenger name records part of the legislation. It is a provision that already exists in regulations. The purpose of the amendments I am introducing and hoping to debate with the Seanad is to put the provisions into primary legislation. It is inherently more democratic that we have important provisions related to passenger name records in primary legislation as opposed to secondary legislation by a statutory instrument.”
“However, the Attorney General advised that, in extending Ireland's PNR regime to intra-EU flights, the entire PNR regime should be put on a primary law footing. That is beneficial. This necessitated the inclusion of more extensive and consequential provisions. The extension of Ireland's PNR regime has been specifically sought by the Garda Commissioner as a matter of urgency. By removing blind spots in our travel intelligence that can be exploited by criminals and others, these provisions will address a significant gap in Ireland's security architecture. I commend the motion to the House.”