It must be the only thing that is outside the scope of the Bill.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Unfortunately because of the way the Minister has framed this debate, a 90-minute debate is just not enough. It is not fair because there have already been lots of amendments which Deputies would have wished to speak for. I want to put on the record that I do not support Deputy Kelly’s amendment. Anybody who is preventing others by unlawful means, whether by obstructing them or impeding their freedom of movement, should be held to account before the law. It should not matter whether the person who is being impeded is a Member of the Oireachtas or not. I do not believe that in a republic you provide particular privileges to Members of the Houses. The Constitution has provision which protects unimpeded access to this House in order to fulfil our constitutional duties and I think it would send out the wrong signal if the Oireachtas was to pass legislation protecting Members of the Houses and not others. Returning to my point about time, this debate started 40 minutes ago. We have only 90 minutes to deal with a wide range of areas. I do not know if it is in order but will the Minister propose an amendment to the Order of Business to extend this debate to ensure that particularly the debate we all want to have on counselling notes will have sufficient time?

Sentiment score: 0.07

I move amendment No. 13: In page 14, to delete lines 25 to 40, and in page 15, to delete lines 1 and 2. This amendment seeks to delete lines 25 to 40. Back in April at the height of what are now called the fuel protests, the Minister added fuel to a volatile situation. He essentially called for the Defence Forces to be deployed to assist gardaí in removing fuel protest blockades. It was a serious escalation and provocation at a time when the Government should have been focusing, and all Ministers, particularly the Minister for justice, should have been focusing on de-escalating the protests. We then had a situation a few weeks later. Out of the blue there were amendments brought forward by the Minister for Defence, added to the Minister for justice, to expand the deployment of Defence Forces under aid to civil power. There has been no explanation as to what happened to bring this situation about. When the Minister for Defence was before the justice committee on Committee Stage, she was completely evasive or ignorant. She was certainly unable to answer specific questions on why now and what additionality would be allowed or provided to the Defence Forces that is currently not provided in law. We do not know where the impetus to make these changes came from at this time, and why they are being made in such a rushed manner as part of a miscellaneous Bill, which as we have already discussed, covers a huge range of unrelated matters. We have been clear in Sinn Féin. There are issues, particularly regarding our naval services, contained in these measures that we fully support. We support the concept in principle of aid to civil power. However, we also believe there has to be utmost accountability and transparency. There are serious concerns about what the Government and the justice and Defence Ministers are bringing forward and why they are doing it in the manner they are. The provisions on aid to civil power raise serious questions as to whether the Government, in an underhand way, is trying to amend the law so it can become common practice for the Defence Forces to be used for the policing of protests. We know An Garda Síochána is the primary civilian policing authority, and any Defence Forces support has to remain exceptional, timebound and tightly controlled. Amendment No. 13 proposes the deletion of the provision in the Bill regarding aid to civil power. If those powers are needed, let us deal with them where they should be dealt with as part of a defence Bill where there can be proper scrutiny by the sectoral committee responsible for that and proper analysis of what exactly the Government is proposing and why. The Government should tell the Minister for Defence to bring forward a Bill that deals with that. Amendment No. 14 would require an annual report and review of these sections in the event that the Government refuses to accept amendment No. 13, to allow a bit of democratic scrutiny of something that is crucially important. It deals with the policing of protests and many other areas. There are huge concerns about this provision. It is not so much what is in the provision as why it has been brought forward in the manner it has been.

Sentiment score: 0.13

I ask the Minister not to be disingenuous by talking about wanting to get to the counselling notes issue. He has been asked by two Members to ask the Chief Whip to come in to amend the Order of Business to give more time. I have decided against every instinct in my body not to call a vote on this amendment, which I think it is crucially important. The reason I am not going to call a vote is because of the people in the Gallery and their right to hear this House discuss a matter of utmost importance that has come about as a result of them telling us their personal testimonies. I ask the Minister not to be so disingenuous. However, I will be calling a final vote on this Bill, and I will be voting against it. The primary reasons for that vote will be the manner in which this has been brought forward; the Minister's entire attitude towards this debate; and his decision - it was the Minister's decision - to curtail this entire debate. There is a myriad of measures involved here, with new provisions added at the last minute to a 90-minute debate.

Sentiment score: 0.07

I move amendment No. 14: In page 15, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “Review and annual reporting on operation of Part IIIA 40D.(1) The Minister shall, in respect of each calendar year, carry out a review of the operation of this Part. (2) A review under subsection (1) shall include an assessment of the exercise of powers under sections 40A, 40B and 40C, including the frequency and circumstances of their use. (3) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the completion of a review under subsection (1), prepare and publish a report containing anonymised data relating to— (a) the number of occasions on which powers under sections 40A, 40B and 40C were exercised, (b) the general nature of the operations or deployments concerned, (c) the use of force in the exercise of those powers, and (d) any other information the Minister considers appropriate for ensuring transparency in the operation of this Part. (4) The Minister shall cause a copy of a report under this section to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after its publication.”.”.

Sentiment score: 0.09

It seems a long time ago that the justice committee considered the heads of this criminal and civil law Bill. A lot more heads have been introduced since. One of our criticisms of the heads of the Bill was that there were huge aspects of the Bill we were not able to spend any time on. We did not get to deal with the sex-for-rent provisions and a whole load of other areas at all. We could only deal with written submissions. We discussed this aspect of the Bill quite a lot, however. There was cross-party agreement. The Minister will know that pre-legislative scrutiny reports sometimes get nodded through and that sometimes somebody proposes something without others realising. This was a considered debate and discussion and all members of that committee agreed that there should be a complete and unconditional ban on the use of counselling records in sexual offence trials. We all have a responsibility in this area but, as Chairperson of that committee, I feel a particular responsibility to bring forward and stay true to that position and to outline how that decision was come to. Crucial to reaching that decision was listening to what victims and survivors had to say both through written testimony - there was quite extensive written testimony - and through oral evidence from organisations that have first-hand experience. I will particularly mention Hazel Behan, who addressed the committee and made a profound impact on all of us, leading to the position being agreed. Survivors have strongly asserted and told us that the practice of their counselling notes being used in criminal trials, potentially in defence of the person who attacked them, causes severe psychological harm and heightens suicide risk. That is the evidence we heard. I have not heard a single person disagree with the need to protect the right to a fair trial, but we also have a duty to victims and survivors. We must also keep that duty at the heart of our justice system. That includes not subjecting victims and survivors to degrading treatment. That is what this is. It is degrading treatment if a person discusses their most personal, intimate details with a professional only for that professional's notes, however elaborate or otherwise, to be demanded by the courts, the purveyors of justice in this State, to be used to defend the person who was the reason that person needed counselling in the first place. It is absolute lunacy. Banning the disclosure of counselling notes is about recognising that they are hearsay evidence. It is about rebalancing our justice system so that there is not only a fair trial but a fair justice system for victims and survivors. The amendment I have put forward, No. 18, provides for a full ban on the disclosure of counselling notes, because that is what is needed. We have discussed it at length. We have heard from victims and survivors. We have heard about the trauma of intimate details being shared. I will also speak briefly to amendment No. 24, which seeks to remove the Minister's wording "in the interests of justice". Again, we discussed this in quite a lot of detail on Committee Stage. Above all else, that amendment to the original Bill brought forward by the Minister is the cause of concern. We all know that solicitors and barristers are going to have an absolute field day discussing that wording. We know that term will allow some defence attorneys to secure the counselling notes of some victims. That is why we have brought forward that amendment. Amendment No. 25 is the last resort. It was submitted on the advice of Rape Crisis Ireland. It proposes that, in the event of these types of notes being brought forward, there would be a very clear instruction to jurors that they are hearsay evidence. I hope that would dissuade some defence counsel from seeking them in the first place. However, what is actually needed is that full and unconditional ban. That is what the Oireachtas committee recommended. That is our job. We are tasked with analysing the heads of the Bill and bringing forward recommendations to the Minister. I express my sincere thanks for those people who have told their stories. I have mentioned this before. In order to save others from the trauma that they have gone through, they have told the world their most intimate details. They have gone beyond the counselling room to try to make that a safe place for others. I thank all of those, including some of them who are in the Gallery and many others whom I have had the privilege of meeting. I acknowledge and recognise Deputy Coppinger's effort throughout all of this. I say this to my shame, but the first time that I became aware that this was an issue was when Deputy Coppinger brought a Private Members' Bill before this House. It is not too often on a Thursday late evening debate that you are moved by an issue, but I was moved by an issue. The argument appeared unassailable then and it is still unassailable as far as I am concerned. Even at this late stage, and we have the Stages in the Seanad and all of the rest of it, I implore the Minister to find a way to make all of those efforts worthwhile and find a way to ban a cruel and inhumane practice.

Sentiment score: -0.03