-----the impact on biodiversity and congestion on public health. Then that would be information which the Minister has. Then the Minister could then respond to it. It is not a new planning process. It is simply saying in regard to that discretionary power the Minister is granting himself under this legislation that, as well as thinking about an environmental impact assessment before the Minister makes the order, they might look at it after the fact. Honestly, those are things they should be monitoring all the time.…

I must disagree with one of my colleagues from the foreign affairs committee, who I acknowledge backed the unanimous report that we put forward, in respect of the suggestion that the Attorney General's advice trumps any other legal opinion, because it does not. The Attorney General's advice does not trump an opinion of the International Court of Justice, and even Trump does not trump an International Court of Justice opinion. The International Court of Justice is clear on this and by the way, while we do not know w…

This legislation, which seeks to allow for the accelerated development of an LNG terminal by bypassing key planning and environmental processes, is a misguided, dangerous and reckless move by the Government that threatens to lock us into increased fossil fuel usage for years to come. During pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill in the Joint Committee on Climate, Environment and Energy, of which I am a member, the report we produced highlighted and noted that there was a significant divergence between the departmenta…

These amendments, or at least highlighting and flagging the issues in these amendments, should have been brought on Committee Stage. There is a problem with the practice of bringing a large number of significant, consequential amendments on Report Stage, the last Stage of a Seanad debate, having avoided full and proper pre-legislative scrutiny on the matters, and having bypassed proper and full debate in the Dáil. The Minister is bringing these as a motion rather than as something arising from Committee Stage debat…

They are, so perhaps we will have a chance for that debate. I am grateful for that. However, it is still an issue that in these last two weeks amendments are being introduced that are very substantive but have not been given pre-legislative or proper scrutiny. This is part of a suite of legislation to significantly increase the powers the Garda, the Defence Forces and many other entities of the State will have. It does not give great confidence in how they are to be used if they are being pushed through at the late…

In amendment No. 25 and the associated set of amendments, the Minister is looking to expand Garda powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 by allowing members of An Garda Síochána to undertake examinations and inspections of controlled substances for the purposes, specifically, of section 3 in terms of prosecution for simple possession. Presently those tests can only be undertaken in a controlled laboratory environment by a suitably qualified member of FSI. While there may be an argument for facilitating drug test…

If I may make a point for accuracy, this is the second time the Minister has stated that. I was going to wait but, because the Minister has said this a second time, I will clarify that the recommendation was to decriminalise the possession of drugs for personal use. It is inaccurate for the Minister to say that the committee recommended the decriminalisation of all of these drugs, as he has now said for a second time. It is very important to be clear and accurate in respect of the committee's recommendations.

With respect, we are not debating a legislative proposal or changes in the legislation that may have been put forward by the committee after considerable consideration. What we are debating is the legislative proposal the Minister is putting forward. We are pointing out that it is moving in the opposite direction. The Minister gave his opinion in relation to decriminalisation. That is not what we are voting on here. What we are voting on is further criminalisation.

Yes, we are. We are moving to a situation in respect of presumptive drug testing, which may have taken place and may not have had an evidentiary basis in courts, but may have had a health purpose. As regards that purpose, it is not simply that it is said it is a free-for-all and anything can be done. We can debate whether decriminalisation for possession, etc., will be part of it but what there has been is a very clear call for a health-led approach. We are now moving towards a situation whereby there will be great…

The Minister has not answered my question. Why is this being done solely in relation to section 3? I ask him to confirm that it is the case currently that there can be and are prosecutions under section 3 using the existing system with Forensic Science Ireland. The Minister may confirm that a mechanism for prosecution already exists.

The Minister might clarify why, specifically and solely in relation to this offence, he is looking to introduce this new evidentiary measure.

I will conclude by noting that it is interesting the Minister is prioritising the use of this new measure for prosecutions for simple possession. It does not speak well to the health-led approach. I have been clear that I will be opposing the amendment.

The indictable offences issue is constructive. It was good to see the accepting of amendments from the Opposition in that regard. I acknowledge that the Minister has engaged constructively with the Opposition in relation to proposals in both Houses in the past. However, it is not the case that these new proposals in respect of face coverings are only in situations where face coverings are worn for the purpose of intimidation. That is not what the legislation states. The legislation states "with intent to intimidate…

But can I? I wore this for two years and took part in protests. If a garda decides that I am wearing a face mask in a manner that is likely to intimidate another person, I can be required to remove it. That is not a power that previously existed. What if a person who is medically compromised wears his or her mask while on a protest? People who were medically compromised participated in the protests and protested about their rights and concerns in respect of Covid and took suitable care. What if somebody, as part of…

No. There is no protection in this in respect of circumstances where a mask is worn on medical grounds or for religious purposes. That is not in the Bill. The Minister is just telling us it will not get used for that. There is no carve-out for those circumstances. There is no carve-out for those who may be protesting. I have been to protests. I have seen protests where persons are very concerned about the safety of their families. I refer to those who were protesting, for example, about the situation in Afghanistan…

In terms of acting in relation to mob intimidation, I do think there could be much stronger measures. I think use should have been made of the public order Act when there was intimidation of asylum seekers in our city centre, in Sandwith Street and in Lower Mount Street. I look at the long-running attitude of seeing how things will play out in response to the intimidation of asylum-seekers. For far too long there was tolerance of extreme intimidation and threat. There was accommodation of the checking of buses by p…

-----but that there is a particular vulnerability and there are persons for whom the application of this law will have a more negative impact. I wish to address two factual things. If we had had this properly teased out maybe we could have resolved this. There may be forms of words that would have addressed it but as the Minister said there are not carve-outs or defences and that language Senator McDowell used of a "reasonable excuse" does not apply to the wearing of a face covering. The "reasonable excuse" applies…

I want to reaffirm and agree with the amendments that my colleague, Senator Ruane, put forward previously in relation to stop and search. They are not addressed by this. They are not about documenting persons who are prosecuted, but about documenting patterns in how gardaí are deploying or using the powers that are being given to them. Monitoring who is stopped and who is searched is very different from tracking persons who may be moving through criminal prosecution. Of course, this is one of the issues with racial…

I have a number of amendments to this section. When we were discussing this on Committee Stage, there was a strong push-back against the amendment we proposed at the time, which was the idea that there would a requirement for a motion to the Dáil or Seanad in respect of such deployments. It was argued that we already do it. We do it 240-something times in the year but, as was said, there is still that question that if we are already doing it and it is already in practice, then why are we adding this specific power …

The amendments that I put forward were simply looking for the public to know how these powers operate. The Minister said that this is a substantive change to the system. It is a new system. It is perfectly legitimate that we would ask about the new system. The Minister is leaning on the past but telling us there is a substantive change and the past system is outdated. If it is a substantive change, as the Minister described it, and a new system, it is legitimate that we would say we should make it transparent. The …