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 48 of 84.
“The purposes for which it can be carried out are in the context of an arrestable offence, in the search for missing persons and also for the protection of the security of the State. That is not to say that in every investigation in these areas, gardaí will resort to biometric analysis. Section 43C also provides that it must be necessary and proportionate and will be presumed to be so if in line with this Bill and a code of practice. The data subjects that can be searched for are included in this section. It is important that we have clarity on who gardaí will be looking for using these tools. These are victims of arrestable offences, missing persons, individuals who are suspected of the commission of an arrestable offence and those who are suspected of being a threat to our national security.”
“They may then wish to search that material for instances of the arrested person in order to understand the full extent of their offending. Missing person cases may also involve biometric analysis being used to find instances of that missing person whose identity is known to gardaí. The definition of biometric analysis excludes biometric identification which is the comparison of an image against a database of images for the purpose of ascertaining, or attempting to ascertain, a person’s identity. Section 43B sets out that the Bill will not apply to certain enactments. This is to ensure that any cooperation internationally where gardaí may have access to databases which utilise facial recognition, is not impacted by the provisions of this Bill. Section 43C provides for the carrying out of biometric analysis on a retrospective basis only.”
“The first part would allow for searches of general biometric characteristics, for example, if a description of a suspect from a witness mentioned their hair colour, height, or a distinguishing feature. The second would allow for the automated recognition and categorising of features of unknown individuals. In other words, where an image that is gathered in the course of an investigation can be searched against other images or footage gathered in the course of that same investigation. The third part would also include the automated recognition and categorising of features of an individual in documents obtained by gardaí but this is where the individual’s identity is already known. For example, gardaí may have arrested a person for possession of child sexual abuse material.”
“Section 3 amends section 2 of the principal Act. It amends the definition of a code of practice to take into account the new sections being inserted in that Act by this Bill and it also inserts the definition of an arrestable offence. Section 4 amends section 3 of the 2023 Act which relates to orders and regulations made under that Act. Section 6 really is the meat of this legislative provision. It will insert a new Part 6A which contains five sections into the Recording Devices Act, namely sections 43A to 43E. I will go through them now. Section 43A will set out the definitions specific to the new Part, including the definition of biometric analysis. This definition is divided into three parts.”
“Equally, it will finally ensure that gardaí have the tools to examine hundreds of hours of CCTV footage relevant to a murder or public order investigation in minutes rather than individual gardaí, as part of a team, spending weeks poring over that footage. It is my strong view that the powers being afforded to gardaí here are proportionate to the significant challenges they face. I have full confidence that they will make a material difference in assisting gardaí in their vital work and am equally confident that the use of this technology will be necessary and proportionate. The Bill is divided into nine sections which I will now briefly outline. Sections 1 and 2 contain standard provisions to set out the Title of the Bill, commencement orders and coming into force once enacted, as well as defining key words and phrases.”
“I do not need to remind Deputies of the vitally important role gardaí play. They are rightly proud of being closely integrated with the communities they serve and of the model of policing by which they keep those communities safe. This Bill seeks to continue down the path of providing gardaí with modern tools to complement that long-established policing model rather than in any way seeking to replace it. This legislation will provide technology that can save Garda personnel from the harrowing task of trawling through child sexual abuse material. I must look out for the welfare of gardaí and Garda staff.”
“This amending Bill makes the first of two planned amendments to the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Act 2023. This Bill, providing for retrospective biometric analysis, will be followed by another Bill which will provide for retrospective and live biometric identification. Biometric identification is defined in section 6 of this Bill. It consists of the automated recognition of human features in order to identify that person by comparing biometric data of the individual to biometric data stored in a database of individuals. The General Scheme of that Bill is still in development and it would not be appropriate to go into detail here on what it will contain. My intention is to introduce that Bill in the Houses next year. I want to address the issue of the Garda need for this technology.”
“The Bill was drafted with these law to the fore of its considerations and any future work in this area will likewise have to ensure that there is no conflict with EU law. I will now outline the stated aims of this Government as outlined in the programme for Government because this legislation is being brought forward in the context of commitments therein. The programme for Government states that the Government intends to support the gardaí to use artificial intelligence in criminal investigations subject to clear guidelines and oversight and to deploy facial recognition technology for serious crimes and missing persons, with strict safeguards. This Bill moves to further that stated intention but the Government's work will not end there.”
“I also emphasise to Deputies that there will be no automated decision making on foot of the results of biometric analysis. This technology is only designed to assist trained gardaí who are responsible for coming to a decision on how to utilise the data that has been processed. The Bill will ensure that the oversight provided by a High Court judge for Parts 3 and 6 of the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Act 2023 is extended to include the provisions of this Bill. A High Court judge will, therefore, report to the Taoiseach on the operation of this Bill on an annual basis. Finally, and most crucially, it should be acknowledged that this Bill is subject to EU law in this area, including the AI Act and the Prüm II Regulation. It is incumbent on the State to transpose all aspects of these laws in the near future.”
“Approval for the code is dependent on positive resolutions being passed in these Houses. Human rights and data protection impact assessments will be required as part of the procedure for drafting the code of practice. The Bill also includes provision for offences around misuse or abuse of biometric analysis. For example, a member of Garda personnel who goes outside of the procedures set out in the code of practice and conceals the results of the use of biometric analysis will be committing an offence. Biometric analysis will only be utilised by gardaí in the context of the investigation of arrestable offences, the protection of the security of the State and for missing persons. It will not be used in the context of more minor offences.”
“With that assurance, I would like to further reassure Deputies of the safeguards designed to ensure against any form of abuse of this technology. Biometric analysis will only be utilised where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. I have full trust in gardaí in their work to form an opinion as to when this technology will be needed. That opinion will be formed subject to the code of practice that will underpin this legislation. Any use of biometric analysis will be subject to scrutiny by the court which eventually hears any prosecution arising out of the investigation that utilised that technology to gather evidence. The code of practice will be made publicly available and will set out procedures surrounding the use of biometric analysis. It will be drafted by the Garda Commissioner and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.”
“Gardaí should not have their hands tied behind their back when it comes to fighting crime and upholding justice, law and order. We are committed to ensuring that the most advanced technology is made available to them which, subject to safeguards, they are free to utilise. It is important to recognise that what is termed "biometric analysis" in this Bill is a tool that is being widely used by police services across the EU and UK. There are multiple international databases dedicated to assisting law enforcement agencies in investigations into child sexual abuse that already rely on this technology. What is being proposed here is not extraordinary in international policing terms. I would argue it is more akin to standard practice policing in the EU.”
“However, these legal requirements do not mean that law enforcement authorities and security services are hamstrung in keeping communities safe and protecting national security when they are faced with a suspect's right to privacy. As we know, no right is absolute; rather, these are rights that can and must be compromised in the pursuit of serious criminals and those who wish to visit violence and disorder upon the community. Privacy cannot be a shield behind which criminals or terrorists may find refuge and evade investigation, arrest or prosecution. I strongly believe that this legislation achieves the delicate balance between respecting personal rights and ensuring the gardaí have the tools they need to do their jobs effectively.”
“Officials from my Department have worked very closely with their colleagues from An Garda Síochána to understand what technological advancements are most needed in investigations involving huge amounts of images and footage. The Garda has made it clear that biometric analysis will be particularly helpful in such investigations. It gives the example of investigations into child sexual abuse material and investigations involving public disorder. Biometric analysis will considerably speed up such investigations, thereby assisting victims and bringing criminals to justice more quickly. I am also aware that Deputies across the House recognise the right to privacy and the importance of data protection in modern society. These are not hollow aspirations but rather are legal requirements in domestic and international law that must be respected.”
“This Bill provides An Garda Síochána with the ability to sort, filter and categorise images and footage gathered in the course of a Garda investigation. That work is termed "biometric analysis", as defined in the Bill. The Garda has the power to utilise automated recognition in the context of objects. For example, it can search CCTV for the blue jacket or the red car. Biometric analysis consists of the automated recognition of human features through the processing of images and footage obtained by An Garda Síochána in the course of an investigation. It is undertaken to find each instance of an individual in the images or footage captured. At the heart of the reform proposed in this Bill is the objective of providing the Garda with a tool that will be a crucial aid in investigations that involve the processing of a large volume of data.”
“I also hope to come back to the House in respect of them. In respect of what we are talking about today, it is important to be aware, as many colleagues are, that huge quantities of images and footage are examined as part of investigations. We are all familiar with the request from An Garda Síochána to the public to share dashcam or mobile phone images of an incident, the lead up to an incident, or its aftermath. An Garda Síochána make such requests on the basis that it recognises that such footage often holds key information and evidence. Manual processing of such vast tracts of data can lead to long delays or even missed evidence. Safe and reliable tools now exist to assist law enforcement authorities with their investigations.”
“This area is relatively complex scientifically. When we talk about biometric analysis, it is important to note that there are four types of biometric analysis or facial recognition that can be used. The first is that we can have retrospective biometric analysis. That is what this Bill seeks to introduce. I will come back to consider that presently. We can also have retrospective biometric identification. I hope to be back in the House in due course for the purpose of legislation in respect of that. Both of them are retrospective. The analysis of footage is for the purpose of retrospectively identifying somebody through a database of facial identities we already have. On top of that, there are also two other types of biometric analysis, which are referred to as "live" - live biometric analysis and live biometric identification.”
“The 2023 legislation also sets out how CCTV footage is to be utilised by An Garda Síochána. The Bill will build on that body of work by providing gardaí with the ability to utilise biometric analysis, a tool that will allow An Garda Síochána to further upgrade its investigative tools for the digital age. This is generally referred to as facial recognition technology, FRT, but there is of course much more to biometric analysis than merely facial recognition. Biometric analysis covers an assessment of the physical, behavioural or physiological characteristics of an individual. In terms of the legislation that I am seeking to introduce for the benefit of An Garda Síochána, it will however predominantly centre on face, gait or other elements such as the build of an individual for the purpose of analysing persons who are on video footage.”
“I move: "That the Bill be read a Second Time." I am very pleased to introduce the Bill to the House. I look forward to hearing the contributions of colleagues. As Deputies will be aware, back in 2023 the Houses enacted the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Act. The Bill I am introducing today is an amendment to that legislation. The legislation the Houses enacted in 2023 constituted an important contribution to updating An Garda Síochána's technological capabilities by providing it with a statutory basis for the operation of recording devices. The type of recording devices that An Garda Síochána can use pursuant to the 2023 legislation are body-worn cameras, which have been of great assistance in public policing and automatic number plate recognition, ANPR.”
“The Statute of Limitations is one year but it can be extended to two. The type of identification order granted in the Circuit Court will be granted, hopefully, on an immediate and summary basis, on the basis that the Internet service provider will turn up and say, "Yes, if we get an order, we will comply with it." That is how it is operating in the High Court and how it should operate. I thank Senators for their contributions.”
“Where an identification order is sought against a non-party entity before the courts, the objective in general is to get the protection of a court order and comply with it, so there are not lengthy applications for those orders. I note what the Senator said about the two years - or perhaps it is one year - in terms of the Statute of Limitations when it comes-----”
“That cannot be done because it is for the court to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, Senator Craughwell has proven Joe Bloggs is the publisher. With the benefit of an identification order and depending on other circumstances of the case, that will, on the balance of probabilities, enable you to prove the identity of the publisher. I will give consideration to it but I do not think putting a rule as to admissibility of evidence into an Act is a good idea. We are better off sticking to the rules of evidence as they exist at present. Senator McDowell stated there could be a lengthy Norwich Pharmacal application but in my understanding of these applications, in general, the respondent to a Norwich Pharma order simply wants the protection of a court order, provided they are not the defendant as well.”
“Whether or not the claimant goes through that procedure or a different procedure, Joe Bloggs is entitled to say he or she is not the publisher. When the claimant issues their proceedings, they will say he is the publisher. He may deny or admit publication, and that can happen regardless of whether there is an identification order. However, if the claimant does then go to the court with the identification order, he or she is in a position whereby his or her solicitor can give evidence in court that they got this identification order and it identified that Joe Bloggs is the publisher. That will be of assistance in proving to the court that the publisher is, in fact, Joe Bloggs. One cannot delineate absolutely that the person identified is going to automatically be the publisher.”
“He will write to the Internet service provider and it will write back to him and say it cannot give him the information about the identity of the person until such time as he gets an order from the court. He goes to the Circuit Court and gets the identification order from the court. The Internet service provider then complies with it. Senator Craughwell then finds out that the person publishing the defamatory posts is Joe Bloggs. Once he gets that information, Senator Craughwell then has to write to Joe Bloggs and say he or she has defamed him and he has got an identification order from the Circuit Court that has identified that he or she is the individual behind the defamatory publication about him.”
“It does not demand that the costs of the Internet service provider be paid. It simply says that, when making an order, the court can order that an applicant pay any or all the costs of the relevant Internet service provider in relation to the application. It is simply putting into a statutory scheme what is there at present in common law in the High Court when a Norwich Pharmacal order is being applied for. I have to be careful about imposing further obligations on an Internet service provider which does not have any legal liability for defamation in the legislation. Another point Senator McDowell raised was publication and how one proves it. However, the likelihood here is, to use Senator Craughwell as an example, Senator Craughwell has been defamed by something online. He is trying to find out who the individual is.”
“If I am to put in place a rule which demands that orders be made against that financial institution in terms of the non-party discovery or, in this instance, against the Internet service provider for making an identification order, it is very well-resourced and will say it is a serious challenge to fairness. It is a challenge to hold an entity that has no legal liability responsible for legal costs and proceedings where it is not a defendant. I have to be conscious as to how that will play out. What is in the legislation is sufficient. I will consider what Senator McDowell said. I have no difficulty doing that, but the provision that is contained within this is a discretionary statutory power that the court has in respect of the making of a cost order in favour of the Internet service provider.”
“The point Senator McDowell is making is on the basis that we are going to have a very large, powerful Internet service provider which is the respondent. The reality is that is correct and probably will be the case. However, I have to look at it completely legally and neutrally, and whether I like it or not or he likes it or not, we have an entity, the Internet service provider, that does not have legal liability for the defamatory publication. In many respects it is similar to a financial institution against whom somebody is looking for a non-party discovery in proceedings that do not involve the financial institution.”
“It is important that we change the law on defamation as it exists at present. It can always be improved. My objective is always to try to balance the right to the good name with the right to freedom of expression. I think I have sought to do that as much as possible. The courts vigorously defend the good name of the individual. They also vigorously defend the right to expression. However, as everyone in this House will be aware, when it comes to the balancing of rights, all we can do is set out the architecture. It is then for the courts and witnesses before a court to determine where the balance should lie in terms of the determination of a claim where the competing interests of defamation and freedom of expression conflict. I thank the Cathaoirleach. I have very much appreciated my time in Seanad Éireann on Committee Stage.”
“Senator McDowell asked me to identify my intentions with regard to Report Stage amendments. As a result of the contributions of Senators, I will bring forward amendments on Report Stage in relation to section 11, which provides for defence of publication in the public interest, and section 13 in relation to the defence of live broadcasts. The amendments in respect of section 13 will address the points raised by Senators and clarify that a short delay in transmission will not impact on the defence. I know Senators may not be satisfied with the full breadth of the Report Stage amendments I intend to bring. I have no doubt some Senators will bring Report Stage amendments as well. I have an objective to try to get the legislation enacted in the most appropriate fashion possible.”
“With regard to subsection (5), which provides a court with discretion to order an applicant to cover the costs incurred by an Internet service provider in responding to the application or in providing the information requested, Senator McDowell is correct to say that Internet service providers do not require their users to verify or provide their identity in order to avail of their services and that the liability of Internet service providers in respect of content appearing on their services differs from that of more traditional media, as I said earlier. Identification orders must not only address the State’s obligation to vindicate the right to a good name. They must also take account of privacy rights and property rights. If they do not, the provision risks being found unconstitutional.”
“Senator McDowell also questioned what the discretion provided for in subsection (4) is designed to achieve. The purpose of allowing the court to retain discretion, even where the conditions set out in subsection (4) are fulfilled, is to recognise that situations might arise which the Legislature cannot account for and which can be appropriately dealt with by the exercise of a discretion by a court which has vast experience in balancing competing rights.”
“Section 22 seeks to achieve a balance between these competing rights and obligations. It is worth not just categorising this as a David and Goliath-type application. I have no doubt there may be circumstances where another Goliath may seek an application by way of an identification order. There could be a circumstance where a very powerful business entity or a very large employer may seek to go to court to try to get an identification order against an employee or competitor that is putting information that is stated to be defamatory into the public domain. Therefore, there has to be a balance there and an ability for the court to recognise that it may not be appropriate to grant the order in some circumstances. That balancing of rights is important.”
“The requirement that an applicant would have no other practical means of obtaining the information has been applied repeatedly by the courts and it has not been interpreted as a requirement that the application must be made as a last resort or that it is the only available means of identifying the anonymous poster. Similarly, the superior courts already adopt a practice of considering the rights of the alleged wrongdoer and, to my knowledge, they do so without requiring details as to the identity of that individual or entity in open court. On the matter of good name, I have an obligation and the State has an obligation to vindicate the right to a good name, but the State also has an obligation to respect privacy rights and the other rights which may be adversely impacted by the granting of an identification order.”
“The requirements in terms of there being no other practical means to obtain the information sought and the need to consider the rights of the anonymous poster and any relevant third parties are both intended to address the fact that an identification order application is essentially a request to an Internet service provider to hand over the personal data of its user without that user being in a position to make representations in respect of that decision. It is also important to remember that these provisions are based on case law from the superior courts.”
“There is a logic in what is proposed in the legislation as it does not change the practical operation of Norwich Pharmacal orders as they exist at present in the High Court. Another point raised by Senator McDowell in his amendment was that he objected to the fact that there is a provision, which is contained in the identification order, which says you will only get it if there is no other practical means to obtain the information sought. That is included for a very particular reason.”
“The reality, as Senator McDowell will know, is that in the vast majority of instances, there may be an order for costs made in favour of the Internet service provider but a stay will be put on it pending the conclusion of the action or, alternatively, costs will be reserved. Whatever the situation, I am leaving a discretion to the court in this instance for the court to determine what order should be made in respect of costs. That discretionary power that the court has exists at present in the High Court under the Norwich Pharmacal order where there is no statutory regime in place. I suspect, in respect of most of those Norwich Pharmacal applications, that either the costs are reserved or the Internet service provider gets its costs but a stay is put on them.”
“If we are looking at the legal situation, leaving aside the characteristics of the entities involved, and it is accepted that the Internet service provider does not legally have a liability for the defamation - that is the law at present, a law that I cannot change because of the provisions of the e-commerce directive and the Digital Services Act - or the cause of action which the applicant wishes to bring, and it is only providing information to facilitate the bringing of a cause of action and a claim, in that instance it would be unusual to hold that independent entity liable for costs.”
“One of the issues that was argued and debated trenchantly by Senator McDowell was that when it comes to that order, why would we leave in place a mechanism whereby costs can be awarded by the court against the applicant and in favour of an Internet service provider.”
“Generally, where an entity that is not a party to litigation is brought before the courts for that purpose, its neutrality within the proceedings is recognised. In most instances, at the outset the defamed person will write to the Internet service provider asking it to identify the person who published the defamatory material. Its defence or line is that it will facilitate that person but only with the benefit of a court order. There is a logic to ensuring that there is a court order in place in order to protect its legal position and order, and also to ensure that an individual has a legal entitlement to get that information. The purpose here is that the Internet service provider will then identify the individual or entity that has published it.”
“We regularly forget who won that fight. We sometimes think Goliath won that fight. He did not. David won that fight. It was the small person. However, in the context of what an identification order is, it is not that the person who has been defamed is in combat with the Internet service provider. What they are seeking to do is they to obtain information from the Internet service provider to facilitate them in taking their claim against the defamer. In many respects the Internet service provider is a bit like a postman, as was helpfully mentioned here on the previous occasion. It does not have an immediate direct liability but it does have information that can facilitate an individual in identifying the person who has defamed them.”
“To a large extent, a significant amount of the contribution of Senator McDowell related to his wish to give voice to the ordinary citizen and protect the good name of the ordinary citizen. I hope he will agree with me that I want to do that as well. I assume everyone in this House is seeking to vindicate and protect the good name of ordinary citizens. Similarly, however, we have to respect freedom of expression and indeed, in certain instances, the right to privacy may be invoked here. The purpose of the identification order being sought, as I said on the previous occasion, should not be viewed as it has been presented, as though it is the small man or woman against the big Internet service provider. In many instances, that is how it will be in practice but it is misleading to present it as a David and Goliath-type contest.”
“In most statutory schemes where there is a process of applying to the Circuit Court it is not set out which circuit should be applied to. In general, the individual complies with what is within the Circuit Court rules. As Senator McDowell will know, one generally has to sue in the Circuit where the defendant, or in this case the respondent service provider, has their principal place of business or registered office. In many instances the applications will be made to the Dublin circuit. Senator McDowell also talked about the right to appeal. The right to appeal is not affected. We do not need to state that if the Circuit Court order is refused and an entity wishes to bring an appeal, it can apply to the High Court, which hears appeals from the Circuit Court.”
“I put it in the Circuit Court because it will be cheaper to obtain it there. It will also make it more amenable for individuals who are seeking it to know that they can go to a Circuit Court, get an identification order, and it does not require the ceremony and expense of going to the High Court. It is a clear and legitimate policy objective for a Minister to say he or she wants a statutory process in place and to put it in the Circuit Court. I do not want to interfere with the full original jurisdiction that rests in the High Court. It would be inappropriate for me to do so. However, in the future I hope that individuals will go to the Circuit Court for the purpose of securing an identification order. Senator McDowell also asked why the legislation does not specify the circuit to which a person should apply.”
“What we are looking at in these amendments is the Norwich Pharmacal-type orders I am putting on a statutory basis in the Circuit Court. Senator McDowell on the previous occasion queried the need to have concurrent jurisdiction, asking why it would not be possible to set out the rules for a Circuit Court judge as to which circuit should have jurisdiction. I do not see any incompatibility between there being a jurisdiction for a Norwich Pharmacal order that continues in the High Court, not on a statutory basis, and, at the same time, there being a statutory-based Norwich Pharmacal identification order process in the Circuit Court. I have limited it to the Circuit Court because I want people to avail of the statutory mechanism of getting an identification order in the Circuit Court.”
“I can understand why he would want to take that down. It seems to be very targeted at him. There may, however, be circumstances in other countries where there may be an oppressive government and individuals may absolutely require to have their identity protected in order to communicate openly on social media sites. There are obligations that are going to have to be considered under EU law. I will certainly play my part in respect of them. In terms of defamation and social media, we had a good discussion the last day on the difference between the traditional media and social media. There is a logic and understanding as to why they are treated differently. It would be impossible for a social media operator to appraise and assess every post that goes up online. It simply would not be feasible for social media to operate in that way.”
“Senators have raised extremely interesting questions, such as that raised by Senator Gallagher just a few moments ago, as to what should be the rules in respect of the opening of social media accounts, the extent to which people be permitted to pass off the identity of another person by using a false social media account and the remedy an individual who wants a false account taken down should be able to avail of to ensure that it is taken down. They are difficult and complicated questions. I am not trying to avoid them. They are issues that will have to be considered nationally and internationally. There are reasons individuals may not wish to disclose their identity when it comes to running a social media account. Senator Craughwell presented an account - I was not aware of it previously - of somebody presenting themselves as him.”
“I commend Senators on their contribution to the debate and the amendments they tabled. What has been apparent in the body of amendments we are looking at here, amendments Nos. 20 to 27, inclusive, is that the focus of the debate in many respects has concentrated on the opening of social media accounts. As Senators will know, that is an issue which goes far beyond what is within the parameters of defamation law or indeed the defamation Bill.”
“In defence of the House of which I am a Member, when it comes to Second Stage debates and Committee Stage assessment of legislation, it can be the case that pressures on Deputies have an impact on the speed with which the Second Stage or Committee Stage debates are dealt with. That is the purpose of this House. The reason many people voted in favour of keeping this House a number of years ago was that they were aware the Seanad has an important role in carefully considering legislation that sometimes might not get the same level of consideration in the Lower House of the Oireachtas. It is an important role. It sometimes makes sure that a Minister is required to slow down to consider issues that have been highlighted in the debate. That has happened here.”
“As I said at the outset, the amendments put forward by Senator McDowell in respect of section 13 and live broadcasts were also worthwhile and I have asked officials in my Department to try to give effect to the intention of the amendment he put forward in respect of that. Those Report Stage amendments will come before the Seanad in the new year. I hope and I ask - I am conscious that I do not want to be seen to restrict Seanad debate - that we will be able to finish Committee Stage today. I think that is the intention of the Senators present as well. However, I do not want people to think I regard this in some way as an unimportant debate. It has been an important debate. I take on board what Senator McDowell said last week. In fairness to him, he was slightly critical of the Lower House.”
“I have great respect for the House, but I am sure Senator McDowell and other Senators will appreciate, when it comes to the amendments I intend to bring forward on Report Stage, it is the case that while they have, to a large extent, been influenced by what has been said here, I have to retain the autonomy and prerogative to decide what I think is in the best interests of the legislation, in accordance with Government policy. On Report Stage amendments, we had a good debate on section 11 on reasonable publication. I have asked for some amendments to be made in respect of that.”