Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026: Second Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-18 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland I would not agree that gathering as many pieces together and moving them forward at once is actually a good approach, especially when it includes components it has been signalled may be introduced that have not had the proper pre-legislative scrutiny. I recognise that miscellaneous provisions legislation is a mechanism that has been used in the past, but I worry in general about the stretch of this. It worries me when elements that are known to be deeply controversial are being added into Bills that are long awaited. It reminds me of a move towards the American approach whereby attack drones and tax cuts get put in the same Bill as school meals and access to hospital equipment. This kind of amalgam involves things that people really want, and may have pressed for over a long period, being placed alongside something that is known to be controversial and, in some cases, deeply problematic for those same advocates. There is a practice as well - not solely here, as we have seen it at European level as well - of introducing omnibus Bills in which vast amounts of law are untangled at the same time. It creates challenges and issues in terms of proper scrutiny and proper decision-making. It may seem clever or convenient, but it does not make for really good laws that have very strong and clear parliamentary mandates. Rather, people feel painted into a corner. Another recent example of this was the Critical Infrastructure Bill. Everybody supports critical infrastructure, but we were told that if we wanted to support it, we had to accept dilutions of the climate law which were in the mix as well. There are positive elements with this Bill that I acknowledge and welcome, which I am sure we will tease out. I want to recognise the work of others which led to this work. It is welcome that the Bill, in Part 15, includes provisions to disregard historical convictions for homosexuality. I recognise the work of a former Member of this House, Fintan Warfield, on that issue. The Bill addresses, in some sense, the provisions around sex for rent. I acknowledge that the Labour Party and others have really led in relation to this issue. It also includes practical provisions, such as those in relation to street furniture. There are, therefore, elements that are positive and need to be teased out. It is good to see them moving forward. However, there are also really concerning components that need and, in some cases have not had, full, detailed evaluation. There are provisions that may seem to be small but are significant, like Part 2 in terms of the incapacitant spray for prison officers, which I am going to come back to in a moment. That is there without any appropriate provisions for monitoring and reporting on the use of it. Senator Ruane, who was part of the scrutiny of this, has recommended a provision around a human rights analysis of how that is used. I note that Ireland is one of the few countries where prison officers do not use this spray and rely on capacity to manage and de-escalate conflict without the use of force or violence. Again, it is in keeping with the idea of Ireland being a place where the majority of gardaí are not equipped with weapons. It is about policing by consent and with buy-in from the community. That is something which should be valued and weighed very carefully. While the introduction of the spray is maybe with an eye to ensure greater safety in prisons, if we look at other jurisdictions, it does not seem to have positively impacted the level of violence in prisons but it has often negatively impacted and destabilised relationships between prison officers and prisoners. In a number of instances in the UK studies have shown disproportionate use of incapacitant sprays against minority communities in prisons, including Black, Muslim and disabled prisoners, which has the effect of normalising the use of violence against particular groups within the prison environment. There is a huge amount to be examined there. Simply allowing for it without proper measures in terms of monitoring and reporting risks a disimprovement at a time when the situation has been improving somewhat, in that the Irish Prison Service notes there has been a decrease in physical assaults by prisoners and aggressive and threatening incidents fell by 8% last year. Tools are being used that need to be deployed and the proposed benefit of this is something that, at a minimum, requires proper monitoring and regulation. Part 5 allows for gardaí to arrest and seize property from individuals they suspect may be subject to an extradition request without a warrant. It very substantially extends the period they may be held in detention before any certificate would come from the Minister. There is concern in relation to that. Concerns have been highlighted about the provision of aid to the civil power, including the use of the Defence Forces. The point was well made that this is something the defence committee should have had the opportunity to examine. We do need to think about it in terms of scenarios whereby, for example, we know there will be an increase in public assemblies and demonstrations during Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union. If there is deployment of members of the Defence Forces, there are concerns about how that is going to align with Ireland's human rights obligations. That is the kind of teasing out that could have been done with the proper scrutiny of this issue in both committees. I also note the intention signalled to introduce amendments on the removal of face coverings. I note there are a number of reasons, including reasons of health and religion and the protection of privacy, where persons may wish to wear a face covering. There are already powers under section 5 relating to disorderly conduct, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with a direction to address behaviours that are problematic, but if simply having a face covering becomes a matter in itself, then there are very significant concerns in relation to that. I will signal what is perhaps the most crucial issue, namely, the disclosure of counselling records. It is unacceptable that people would be asked to choose between healing and justice. The Minister knows that the joint committee focused intently on this issue. Members talked about the traumatic impact the disclosure of a person's counselling records can have on survivors of sexual violence. We talked about the decisions people make. We know how many people fail to seek justice in relation to sexual abuse and violence. We have a crisis of confidence among victims of sexual violence in the system. Rather than strengthening the confidence such victims would have in a system that has consistently failed them, which leads to an extraordinary level of under-reporting and under-prosecution of this kind of offence, we are in fact driving them further away from the seeking of justice. A complete ban on the use of counselling records is something the committee sought. It is a matter that will reflect very poorly on us in the future. It will have a chilling effect on justice. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we will strongly oppose those elements on Committee Stage. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-06-18/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:05+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-06-18