Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026: Committee Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-24 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland I will be brief. In the examples the former Minister described, the Army was deployed. This Bill did not exist, and the Army was deployed. We have had discussions about missing persons and other incidents. Let us have legislation on a statutory basis to address such incidents, including kidnapping and so forth. However, the Bill a very wide rather than a nuanced instrument in the context of such incidents. All of the examples mentioned were instances where the Army had already been deployed. There are circumstances where other mechanisms have been found to ensure the Army's deployment. There are many circumstances where that happens. What we are being asked to agree with here is a very wide categorisation of aid to the civil power that does not refer to extreme circumstances, provide caveats in service of democracy or state that we know only trucks will be sent. The Bill does not state any of those things. It simply states that the Minister for Defence, when asked to do so by the Minister for justice, can allow the deployment of the Defence Forces. In democracies internationally, there are always very careful safeguards in place between civilian authority and the use of military power. That is because, for many centuries, military power was predominant. There is a reason why, normally, there are extra safeguards. The Minister may not like the safeguard we have suggested in respect of a very simple matter. If he wanted to introduce a time limit, he could do so. The idea of saying that it is preposterous that the Dáil or Seanad would be involved is not true. In a time-bound situation, we can look to the kind of measures used in certain European legislation. It could be the case that in order for an exercise to continue beyond 48 hours or for there to be a time-limited action, that would be subject to review and approval for continuation by the Oireachtas. Many nuances can be put on that. The amendment is an attempt to have a structure of accountability regarding what is not currently even the subject of a discussion at Cabinet; it is the subject of a discussion between the Ministers for justice and Defence. The Bill does not categorise circumstances where this would be the only approach or where other measures might be looked. It simply refers to "such class or classes of assistance as may be agreed". There are two Ministers who can say that the Army can be used for whatever classes of assistance they decide they want to use it for and that this will be subject to "such conditions as he or she may specify". The Minister for Defence may set out some conditions, but we will not know what they are. We will not even know what kind of conditions they are. I am sure we can come up with historical and projected future examples where there may be circumstances where the Army may be needed to support the civil power. Sinn Féin, which opposes the Bill completely, is not against that idea but would like it to teased out properly by the defence and justice committees. We should be wary of a kind of blank-cheque measure which simply states that two Ministers can decide when to use the Army to provide whatever kind of assistance they believe they want. There may be conditions that the Minister may specify. Will these be made public? Members of the public know their rights when gardaí engage with them. Will they know their rights in regard to engagement with the armed forces? Will that be a clearly known fact? If a person is approached by a member of the Defence Forces, will they know their rights and responsibilities and will the know how to respond? Where is the transparency around the conditions and circumstances? That is important in light of the effect on public confidence and democracy when the Army is on the streets. I am not saying that there no circumstances in which the Army should be on the streets, but we should be clear about the circumstances and conditions and when and how that would be done properly. There is nothing to stop the Minister coming back on Report Stage with a commitment to produce and publish regulations in respect of the use of the Army in support of the civil power. There could be public regulations we could all read. We could know that in any given circumstance where there is organised crime or where it is believed that there is a level of violence and risk involved, certain urgent action can be taken. We need things that are clear which we can all look at and know why something is happening, rather than somebody on the street seeing the Army being brought in and knowing that the Minister for justice asked the Minister for Defence to send it in without knowing what that means. Again, there is nothing to prevent transparency. The Minister might clarify if he intends to publish conditions or to seek that the Minister for Defence do so. There is no provision in the legislation around regulations on the use of the Army. The Minister could think about producing a schedule - this could be added to - in respect of what classes of assistance the Army might be used for. Will there be safeguards whereby the Army only gets brought in when it has been shown that civil power alone is not enough? For example, was civil power not enough in relation to the arrests of individuals in certain circumstances? Was civil power not enough in relation to perhaps the seizure or impoundment of vehicles, if that is the issue that is being talked about? Were those powers deployed? Why are we moving to the Army without having exhausted the civil powers? It is not a matter of simply saying here is a bigger hammer that I would like to use. It is a matter of whether the tools at hand within our civil authorities have been used and whether the use of this new tool has been justified at this new time. All people are looking for is transparency and clarity. If the Government does not like the time delay, I believe that our Legislature makes capable and good decisions quickly in emergencies and let us see what the other safeguards are. However, right now, it is a conversation between two Ministers. It has a huge issue of opacity, and it will damage the confidence in both civil authorities and our armed forces unless it is clarified and confidence can be restored. --- 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/2026-06-24/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:06+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-06-24