I just have a few brief comments to make. The issue in relation to the pre-1922 convictions is obviously different to what the working group said, which is a pity and the previous speaker spoke about military archives as well. How do we deal with that? The working group proposed a dedicated independent body as the first contact, modelled on the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC. This is the first time we are getting this component of the legislation put into this Bill. We will not go back and talk about that again. However, was that something the Minister considered or does everything have to be transmitted through the Department of justice and the Minister himself? Everything is basically being routed one way. Does the Minister think that is the best way of doing it? If that is going to be the Minister's style with regard to everything, that is fine. In many other scenarios they would have gone through some form of independent process to cross-check and review everything one step away. Ministers usually like to be one step away but in fairness to the Minister in this case, he is right in there. On having no first point-of-contact body with support and advocacy, it is more the advocacy part of it that I am on about. There will be a lot of emotion in this regard in many cases and there is no standing panel of assessors. The working group also proposed a hierarchical but flexible approach regarding representatives for deceased people. The query relates to the structure that is there for immediate family members, including cohabitants and partners, having a priority. If nobody immediate is willing to put forward the case for somebody, can somebody who is a close friend do it? Is there any process? I ask because there will be circumstances like that, given the nature of what we are discussing. Is there any potential pathway for somebody to act on behalf of somebody who is deceased to honour their wish, if there was a wish, for this to be dealt with? The working group also devoted a dedicated chapter in the form of statements as the mechanism for cases where records no longer exist or are insufficient. It made specific recommendations on how such statements should be sought and assessed but the Bill does not contain an equivalent provision. So, there is no express mechanism for disregarding a conviction where no records can be found. Independent persons may seek information from public bodies but there is no formal statement procedure as a substitute where a person or persons would make a formal statement but where there are no records. There can be reasons why records cannot be found, which the Minister has spoken about himself before in relation to other matters. Is there a process where the Minister could consider that formal statements could constitute a submission to this? He might look at that in the Seanad because I think it is probably the most important point I am going to make here as regards any amendments to this. The review process the Minister has proposed in relation to a 28-day timeline is fine but it is different from what the review said as well. I have a couple of final points. The working group recommended that the State apology of 2018 be reiterated on the launch of this scheme, and that individualised letters of apology from the Minister be provided to successful applicants. That is not in the Bill. Is that something the Minister would consider? It is quite an emotional issue, so I think it would be very nice. It is not a must-do but it would be a nice thing to do, in fairness, given the topic we are talking about. The working group also recommended a fixed time limit for making applications. The Bill imposes a 24-month limitation period but I have read there that the Minister has discretion to extend that, so that is probably okay. They are my honest contributions. There may be a couple of issues there, particularly in relation to where statements could be made in support where there is no documentation available. The Minister might consider that.

Sentiment score: 0.18

I refer to the query on statements. Will the Minister accept them if there is no record? That is most important.

Sentiment score: 0.12

I move amendment No. 9: In page 9, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: PART 2 AMENDMENT OF POLICING, SECURITY AND COMMUNITY SAFETY ACT 2024 Amendment of Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 4. The Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 98: “Intimidation 98A.A person who attempts in any way to coerce or intimidate a member, or any other person, in connection with the performance by the member of his or her functions as such a member shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable— (a) on summary conviction, to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both, or (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €30,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to both.”.”. We spoke about this previously and the Minister said he would look at it, so I gave him time to look at it. I did not see anything coming forward in relation to this. We are trying to ensure that if members of An Garda Síochána or their family members are intimidated in any way in the performance of their duties, this would be an offence. We know very well, given what has happened in the recent past in our jurisdiction, with the way in which gardaí and their family members have been treated, with their houses having been targeted and how, at its national conference, the GRA referred to the manner in which members of An Garda Síochána have received significant intimidation when going about their lives off duty, that their capacity to function and perform as gardaí has been affected. The Minister said that, as part of this miscellaneous Bill, which we have spoken about as so wide-ranging, that he would look at this with regard to this Stage. I am wondering if he has looked at it. I took on board what he said previously, but I resubmitted the amendment on the basis that he said he would look at it.

Sentiment score: 0.04

I take the Minister's word for it. I will pursue this issue. I honestly believe we need to reach another bar not only when it comes to gardaí but all uniformed personnel. I am thinking of the intimidation of uniformed personnel in this country and the manner in which they are being treated, including off duty, and the way in which their families and homes are potentially targeted. We have reached a different threshold in relation to this issue in this country and we need to deal with it. There needs to be respect. The people who wear the uniforms obviously need to have respect as well and the great majority do. I am bringing this forward because I believe there is a need for it and the GRA has asked for it. In conjunction with that, in order to protect An Garda Síochána, we also need to bring in legislation for pursuit and offences for pursuit where gardaí are being prosecuted on their own licences on the basis of pursuits. In some cases that is really wrong. On the basis of what the Minister said, that he will bring something forward, I will withdraw the amendment. If he does not I will and I hope he will support it.

Sentiment score: 0.04

I move amendment No. 11: In page 9, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “PART 2 AMENDMENT OF NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 Amendment of Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 4.The Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 is amended by the insertion of the following section: “Obstructing free movement of member of House of Oireachtas 9A.A person who, by violent means or any form of intimidation and without lawful authority, obstructs or impedes the freedom of movement to or from any place of a member of either House of the Oireachtas is guilty of an offence and is liable— (a) on summary conviction to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.”.”. This relates to the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. It inserts a provision which relates to every one of us in the Dáil as well as Ministers and Senators. It relates to the obstruction of the free movement of Members of Houses of the Oireachtas. This is particularly pertinent because societally everything has changed. There has been numerous cases where people in this House have not been able to go about their business. We all know there are constitutional protections in relation to access to and from Dáil Éireann but there are also cases where Members of this House, including members of the Government in recent times, have been restricted in their movements for a period of time and the manner by which some people dealt with them was far from acceptable and An Garda Síochána may not have been available at the time. This amendment makes it an offence to deliberately, and for an ongoing period, obstruct free movement of Members of the Houses of Oireachtas so that a person who, by violent means or any form of intimidation and without lawful authority, obstructs or impedes the freedom of movement to or from any place of a member of either House of the Oireachtas is guilty of an offence. I can guess the Minister’s response will be that this will also need broader consideration but my party and I believe that we need to look broadly at how we will ensure that people who are elected to these Houses can go about their business as representatives of the people of this country, while respecting protest, without being intimidated or unlawfully dealt with or violently threatened in any way, shape or form.

Sentiment score: -0.11

I will save time.

Sentiment score: 0.49

I move amendment No. 17: In page 18, to delete lines 31 to 35, to delete pages 19 to 22, and in page 23, to delete lines 1 to 18 and substitute the following: “Amendment of section 19A of Criminal Evidence Act 1992 16.(1) The Criminal Evidence Act 1992 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 19A: “Disclosure of third-party records in certain trials 19A.(1) In this section— ‘Act of 1950’ means the Nurses Act 1950; ‘Act of 1985’ means the Nurses Act 1985; ‘Act of 1995’ means the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995; ‘Act of 2005’ means the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005; ‘Act of 2011’ means the Nurses and Midwives Act 2011; ‘applicable record’, in relation to criminal proceedings for a sexual offence, means a child protection record, a counselling record, a medical record or a social work record— (a) in relation to which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, (b) which was not compiled for the purposes of, or in contemplation of, the investigation into, or the prosecution of, the sexual offence concerned, and (c) whether or not the service the subject of the record was provided for remuneration; ‘child protection’ means an intervention or a series of interventions designed to safeguard children from abuse, neglect, violence, exploitation or harm and to promote their safety, wellbeing and rights; ‘child protection professional’ means a person who has undertaken training or study resulting in a qualification, or who has professional experience, relevant to child protection; ‘child protection record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means, by a person who was a child protection professional at the time of the making of the record, in the course of investigating or managing concerns, or carrying out assessments or interventions, in relation to the safety, welfare, or protection of a complainant when the complainant was a child; ‘competent person’ means a person who has undertaken training or study or has experience relevant to the process of counselling; ‘complainant’ means a person in respect of whom a sexual offence is alleged to have been committed; ‘counselling’ means listening to and giving verbal or other support or encouragement to a person, or advising or providing therapy or other treatment to a person; ‘counselling record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means, by a competent person in connection with the provision of counselling to a complainant; ‘court’ means the District Court, Circuit Criminal Court or the Central Criminal Court; ‘disclosure application’ has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (2); ‘medical professional’ means— (a) a registered medical practitioner, (b) a registered nurse, or (c) a registered midwife; ‘medical record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means, relating to the medical treatment of a complainant by, or ordered or initiated by, a person who was a medical professional at the time of the making of the record; ‘registered medical practitioner’, in relation to a particular point in time, means a person— (a) who was a registered medical practitioner within the meaning of section 2 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007, (b) whose name was entered in the General Register of Medical Practitioners established under section 26 of the Medical Practitioners Act 1978, or (c) who was registered in the Register of Medical Practitioners prepared and established under the Medical Practitioners Act 1927, at that point in time; ‘registered midwife’, in relation to a particular point in time, means a person whose name was entered in— (a) the midwives division of the register of nurses and midwives established under section 46(1) of the Act of 2011, (b) the midwives division of the register of nurses established under section 27 of the Act of 1985, or (c) the midwives division of the register of nurses maintained under section 41 of the Act of 1950, at that point in time; ‘registered nurse’, in relation to a particular point in time, means a person— (a) whose name was entered in the nurses division of the register of nurses and midwives established under section 46(1) of the Act of 2011, (b) other than a registered midwife, whose name was entered in the register of nurses established under section 27 of the Act of 1985, (c) other than a registered midwife, whose name was entered in the register of nurses maintained under section 41 of the Act of 1950, or (d) who was registered in the register kept in pursuance of the Nurses Registration (Ireland) Act 1919, at that point in time; ‘sexual offence’ means an offence referred to in the Schedule to the Sex Offenders Act 2001; ‘social care worker’— (a) in relation to a particular point in time prior to the establishment under section 36 of the Act of 2005 of the register of members of the profession of social care worker, means a person who was practising as such and who held a qualification that is listed opposite the profession of social care worker in the third column of Schedule 3 to the Act of 2005 or a qualification that is a corresponding qualification, within the meaning of Part 9 of that Act, to that qualification, or (b) in relation to a particular point in time following the establishment of that register, means a person whose name was entered in that register, at that point in time; ‘social worker’— (a) in relation to a particular point in time prior to the establishment under section 36 of the Act of 2005 of the register of members of the profession of social worker, means a person who was practising as such and who held a qualification that is listed opposite the profession of social worker in the third column of Schedule 3 to the Act of 2005 or a qualification that is a corresponding qualification, within the meaning of Part 9 of that Act, to that qualification, or (b) in relation to a particular point in time following the establishment of that register, means a person whose name was entered in that register, at that point in time; ‘social work record’ means any record, or part of a record, made by any means, by a person who was a social worker or social care worker at the time of the making of the record, as part of a professional practice relating to assessing or supporting the welfare of a complainant or any related intervention by the social worker or social care worker. (2) There shall be a presumption against the disclosure of all applicable records. The presumption against disclosure may only be rebutted in accordance with subsection (11) and (12), furthermore— (a) applicable records may not be disclosed to the accused in proceedings for a sexual offence without the leave of the court in accordance with this section, and (b) no one shall request access to a counselling record nor shall a counselling record be disclosed to the prosecutor or to the accused in proceedings for a sexual offence without the leave of the court in accordance with this section. (3) 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 to the accused under subsection (11), the prosecutor or the accused, as the case may be, shall make an application (in this section referred to as a ‘disclosure application’), in writing, to the court setting out— (a) the specific applicable record sought, or particulars identifying same, (b) cogent reasons for seeking the applicable record which engage with the facts of the case, and (c) the grounds relied upon to establish that it is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial. (4) A disclosure application under subsection (2) must be made within 28 days of service of the book of evidence (or the service of a précis of evidence in the District Court) and must be made on notice to the prosecutor or accused, as applicable. (5) Where a disclosure application is made under subsection (3), the court shall consider the application and where it is satisfied that the grounds relied upon in the application— (a) establish that the record is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial, the court shall order that a hearing referred to in subsection (8) be held, or (b) do not establish that the record is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial, the court shall refuse the application. (6) Where the court orders, under subsection (5)(a), that a hearing referred to in subsection (8) be held— (a) the court may order that the person who has possession or control of the applicable record concerned shall produce the record to the prosecutor not later than the beginning of such period in advance of the hearing as may be prescribed in rules of court but the court may not make such an order in respect of counselling records, (b) the court may order that the person who has possession or control of the applicable record concerned, including a counselling record, shall produce the applicable record to the court only, in a confidential manner as prescribed in rules of court, and not later than the beginning of such period in advance of the hearing as may be prescribed in rules of court, and (c) without prejudice to subsection (7), the prosecutor shall, not later than the beginning of such period as may be prescribed in rules of court, notify the person who has possession or control of the applicable record concerned, the complainant, and any other person to whom the prosecutor believes the applicable record relates of the order of the court under subsection (5)(a) and, where applicable, paragraphs (a) and (b). (7) The court may, at any time, order that a disclosure application be notified to any person to whom it believes the applicable record may relate. (8) The court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the content of the applicable record should be disclosed to the accused. (9) The person who has possession or control of the applicable record, the complainant and any other person to whom the applicable record relates shall be entitled to appear and be heard at the hearing referred to in subsection (8). (10) In determining, at the hearing referred to in subsection (8), whether the content of the applicable record should be disclosed to the accused under subsection (11), the court shall take the following factors, in particular, into account: (a) the extent to which the record is necessary for the accused to defend the charges against him or her; (b) the probative value of the record; (c) the reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the record; (d) the potential prejudice to the right to privacy of any person to whom the record relates; (e) the public interest in encouraging the reporting of sexual offences; (f) the public interest in encouraging complainants of sexual offences to engage with the provision of services by a child protection professional, a competent person, a medical professional, a social care worker or a social worker; (g) the effect of the determination on the integrity of the trial process; (h) the likelihood that disclosing, or requiring the disclosure of, the record will cause harm to the complainant including the nature and extent of that harm; (i) whether disclosure of the applicable records is sought on the basis of a discriminatory belief or basis. (11) Subject to subsections (12), (13) and (14), 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, unless the court is satisfied, having examined the record, that— (a) the record is likely to be relevant to an issue at trial, (b) the information contained in the record cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means, and (c) one or both of the following apply: (i) there would be a real risk of an unfair trial in the absence of such disclosure; (ii) it is otherwise in the interests of justice to so order. (12) The Court shall not order disclosure of the content of a counselling record to the accused, and where applicable, the prosecutor, unless the court is satisfied, having examined the record, that the information contained in the record cannot reasonably be obtained by any other means and there would be a real risk of an unfair trial in the absence of such disclosure. (13) The provisions within this section are mandatory. However, a complainant may, either in response to an application under this section or of their own motion through their own legal representation, indicate their consent to the disclosure of an applicable record to the court. Such consent should be fully-informed, based on legal advice and should be given directly to the court. In the event that a complainant wishes to provide their consent of their own motion, such application should be made on notice to the prosecutor and the accused within 28 days of service of the book of evidence or the précis of evidence as the case may be. (14) (a) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (11), (12) or (13), in the interests of justice and to protect the right to privacy of any person to whom the applicable record relates, the court shall only grant disclosure of such specific material as is strictly necessary and the court may impose any condition it considers necessary on the disclosure of the record. (b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), one or more of the following conditions may be included in an order made pursuant to subsection (11), (12) or (13)— (i) that a part of the content of the applicable record be redacted, (ii) that a copy of the applicable record and not the original be disclosed, (iii) that the applicable record be viewed only at the offices of the court, (iv) that no copies, or only a limited number of copies, of the applicable record, be made, (v) that information concerning the address, telephone number or place of employment of any person named in the applicable record be redacted from the record, or (vi) that the applicable record be returned to the person who owns or controls the said record. (c) An applicable record that is disclosed to the accused pursuant to subsection (11), (12) or (13) must only be used for the purposes of the criminal proceedings for which the record has been disclosed and may not be disclosed to any person without leave of the court. (15) The court shall provide reasons for ordering, or refusing to order, disclosure of the content of an applicable record pursuant to subsection (11) or (12). (16) Where, upon application by the accused, the court considers that the interests of justice require the making of a disclosure application after the period permitted in subsection (3), the court may direct that such an application may be made. (17) For the purposes of a hearing pursuant to subsection (8), all persons, other than officers of the court, persons directly concerned in the hearing and such other persons (if any) as the court may determine, shall be excluded from the court during the hearing. (18) In addition to the meaning assigned to that expression by section 27 of the Act of 1995, ‘legal aid’ in that Act means representation by a solicitor or barrister, engaged by the Legal Aid Board under section 11 of that Act, on behalf of a complainant or witness in relation to an application pursuant to this section. (19) Where any applicable record or counselling record containing opinion, interpretation, or third-party summaries is admitted in evidence, the judge shall issue a warning to the jury that such material is indirect, interpretive, may contain factual errors and should not be treated as a verbatim account of the complainant’s words or actions in particular where the complainant did not have any opportunity to review or correct such contents. (20) The Minister shall, within 18 months of the commencement of this section, conduct a review of its operation and lay a report of that review before both Houses of the Oireachtas.”.”.

Sentiment score: -0.05

We should be spending hours discussing this instead of 26 minutes. I am not going to take up all the time because I have spoken on this at length in the committee. On behalf of the Labour Party, I am putting forward an amendment drafted by Lorcan Staines SC for the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. It proposes a compromise to deal with this highly sensitive issue. Our justice committee had harrowing, very upsetting and detailed evidence given to us directly. Many of us in that portfolio will also have heard about it personally. There is a pendulum here that we have to deal with. We must consider the constitutionality of what we are trying to achieve. I respect that. However, we must also push it as far as we possibly can. That is what this amendment tries to do. When it comes to the actual detail, it is a question of the independent review panel and what is being proposed in the legislation versus the phrase the Minister has introduced, "in the interests of justice", which moved the pendulum. That is where the debate was the last day. We are back here without any change so I have submitted the amendment again. In spirit, all of us, whether in government or opposition, are of the one mind as to how we need to deal with this. Counselling notes should not be used. It is as simple as that. As legislators, we need to ensure we deal with the issue in a manner that meets constitutional, legal and technical requirements. I am definitely not going to go through it in the same level of detail as I did on Committee Stage, but it is proposed that panel members would create a narrative and that there would be limitations on the information provided in that narrative. That is the format by which we should deal with counselling notes. As a consequence, victims would not be retraumatised and counsellors would be protected. That is what I am trying to achieve. That is what the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and the Labour Party are trying to achieve. It is why we spent so much time supporting this, speaking on it and voting on it on Committee Stage. I believe there is spiritual support for this within the Minister's own party and within the Government. We believe this extends to the limits of what is achievable constitutionally. It would address the issue of how to deal with counselling notes. It would also ensure that victims are protected. It meets all of the requirements we need to meet within the limitations of what we can do constitutionally. That is why I have pushed the amendment forward again. At this late hour, I ask the Minister to reconsider this and to look at it again because, as I said on Committee Stage, I do not think anybody is going to be happy with the way the Bill is currently drafted by Government. Even if they are willing to walk through and vote for it, I do not think the Minister's own Government colleagues will be happy. As an Opposition Member, I am trying to create a compromise and to ensure we have something we can all support.

Sentiment score: 0.14