Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026: Report and Final Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-02 ============================================================ Sharon Keogan (IND), Industrial and Commercial Panel My amendment No. 24 proposes to insert a three-year sunset clause and a mandatory operational review framework into Part IIIA of the Defence Act 1954, as inserted by section 9 of the Bill, directly addressing the State's expanding powers regarding the Defence Forces' deployment in aid of the civil power. Let me be clear. I support the broad principles of the Bill and I welcome the codification and modernisation of our defence protocols. However, this is a miscellaneous provisions Bill and, as such, it is not really the place to introduce broad and sweeping reforms. Nevertheless, just as we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good, we must never allow the good to become the enemy of the better. I bring forward my amendment in the spirit of improving the Bill and, at a bare minimum, in order to have some constructive suggestions entered into the public record, which I hope the Minister will consider. In addition to adding a sunset clause, my amendment proposes a requirement for the Minister to bring forward a report. This is to ensure the legislation does not expire into a vacuum. The amendment also outlines the issues the report should consider. That will address what I consider to be a number of conflations and simplifications that arose during the previous debate. One issue the report should consider is the classification of the different types of deployments of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power. During debate on the preceding Stage, there was a conflation of all kinds of deployments. On the one hand, the Minister mentioned routine deployment such as the bomb disposal squad helping An Garda Síochána and armed escorts for cash transports. On the other hand, the example was given of the deployment against the fuel protests. That is not helpful. Attaching a section of soldiers to passively dissuade an attack on a cash transport is obviously different from a deployment of a whole company to clear protestors from the streets. The amendment also suggests consideration of the threshold appropriate to the classifications. In defence of the deployment during the fuel protests, we were told the protestors were in breach of the law, had no right to block vital infrastructure and, therefore, we must send in the troops. That reflects a bizarre all-or-nothing dualism. Breaches of law must be treated with proportionality. Civil disobedience, by its nature, is about breaking the law in a non-violent manner. When climate protestors blocked O'Connell Bridge or when pro-peace activists block Shannon Airport, is there any talk of deploying the Army? Of course there is not. Unless a violent mob were surging up Nassau Street or Grafton Street with clear intent to storm these buildings in order to violently overthrow the legitimate Government, the Army should not be deployed. As a general principle, the Army should not be used for crowd control or dealing with protestors at all. That should be the sole remit of the Garda and it should be resourced accordingly. There is a tangible concern that the Army could slip into becoming a back-up riot squad, and that is not right. The Army is for the defence of the State, whether from external invasion or internal insurrection, not for deployment against protestors looking for a change of law or policy or even against vandals. Then there is the consideration of the safeguards and oversight mechanism applicable to such deployments. In looking to check these powers of domestic military deployment, we have also seen evidence of another type of duality of thought, namely, that deployment in aid of the civil power should be either subject or not subject to the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is another unhelpful duality. As the Minister pointed out, it would be impractical given the urgent nature of most deployments. However, that does not mean we should give such a high level of discretion regarding serious deployments to two Ministers. There could be a requirement for Cabinet approval, for example, or approval by the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, with such approval conditioned on a State crisis check. I do not have a fully formed solution but these are exactly the questions and discussions I would like my amendment to encourage. On the back of these discussions and considerations, a permanent law is to be drafted. If that is not yet ready and more time is needed to get it right, the amendment includes provision to extend the current legislation via a resolution passed by both Houses. Discussions and reforms along those lines will be vital as we go forward. We must face the sad reality that we are in an age of growing security needs and our Defence Forces will, I hope, grow and expand to meet the dangers the world faces. In that context, it is vital to look to appropriate reforms in matters of domestic deployment, including deployment in aid of the civil power. I commend my amendment to the House. --- 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/2026-07-02/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:09+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-07-02