We have already accepted an amendment.

I just want to make a point on the Bill. The one thing I am very clear on is that there is no end to the amendments we could actually consider. People have been contacting me about this over the years, but also recently. Since there is such an urgent need for legislation in this area, our objective should be to establish a framework. As I said in my opening comments on this, the framework should not be the final word, by any stretch of the imagination. We will be building on it, firstly as we learn how it is operat…

I move amendment No. 17: In page 5, line 14, after “ section 2 or 3 ” to insert “or section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997”. As the Ceann Comhairle said, we discussed this issue on Committee Stage. In the original Bill I drafted, to amend the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997, I had the harassment elements included in a judge's capacity to preserve the victim's anonymity. I refer to the amendment of section 10 of the 1997 Act. The Minister was of the view that the online haras…

On Committee Stage and subsequently, the Minister indicated that there is a justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill coming next year and that she will give further consideration to the instances concerned in light of it. There are cases where what I propose is warranted. I am asking not that a determination be automatic but that it be open to the court to make one. I trust the judges in this matter. The judges will be able to determine, on a pleading from a victim's legal counsel, whether it is an appropriate order…

I do not know how many seconds I have, but the general point I was trying to make was about plain English. The Bill as drafted reads, "Proceedings against a person under the age of 17 charged with an offence under this Act shall not be taken except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions." This measure is being translated into "Notwithstanding section 52(4) of the Children Act 2001, where a child under 17" and so on. It is better than the original provision, but we should strive for plain Engl…

I will begin by saying that Brexit was never our project and never our doing in this country. It has, however, dominated our discourse for four years now. It is the Christmas season and that is my motivation in warmly and sincerely congratulating the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and his team on the way the Brexit negotiations have been handled and for keeping all of us and all the stakeholders well informed over the last number of years. I also compliment Michel Barnier, a man I first met many years ago when we were b…

As this is a personal statement, is there any scope for comment?

I have a simple question. Was the former Deputy, Mr. Shatter, notified of the Taoiseach's statement and has the Taoiseach been in communication with him to inform him of the correction of the Dáil record on this matter? If not, does he intend to do so?

I do not want to take up my time with mentioning this, but giving Opposition parties five minutes to respond undermines the commitments made after the Lisbon treaty to deal with European affairs in a much more structured way. I hope we can revisit that. Normally we would now be talking about the detail of the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, and the EU's recovery and resilience facility. There is no doubt that we will have opportunities to do that in the future. In normal circumstances we would be talking at …

In the short time available to me, I will concentrate my remarks on Brexit, although the Council meeting will cover a very wide agenda. This morning's briefings from Michel Barnier are not such as to give us great heart. Speaking yesterday to members of the European affairs committees of national parliaments, President von der Leyen reiterated the EU position that the continued access to the Single Market without quotas and tariffs demanded by Britain must be on the basis of accepting common standards and rules tha…

I move: That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to provide, in connection with the proceeds of crime, that certain conduct occurring outside the State is criminal conduct notwithstanding that it does not constitute an offence under the law of the state or territory concerned if the conduct constitutes or is connected with a gross human rights abuse, for that purpose to amend the Proceeds of Crime Acts 1996 to 2016, and to provide for related matters. Many Members would recognise this legislation a…

I move: "That the Bill be taken in Private Members' time."

I warmly welcome today's exercise in proper political accountability. It is one of the core functions of the House to hold the Executive to account for all its actions. I have been privileged to serve in three coalition Governments, two of which were coalitions with Fine Gael. In each Government, all senior Government appointments were subject to cross-party agreement after detailed discussions about all available and suitable candidates. Few appointments received greater scrutiny than the appointment of senior jud…

We were not in government at the time.

The Taoiseach's line of defence is that he could not have done anything improper since he did not know what was going on. He did not know who the contenders were and he did not seek to find out. The Minister for Justice is left having to claim to be, as far as I can determine, the first Minister for Justice in history to determine personally a Supreme Court nomination without reference to the Taoiseach in a coalition Government. Is that the Minister's position?

That is not the question.

The Minister should not talk down the time. I have laid out the process and I am familiar with it. I served in two Governments with Fine Gael. The Minister for Justice brings a proposal after it has been debated at some length with the leaders of Government. Why did that not happen in this instance? When was the Minister first told of the application of Mr. Justice Woulfe for the position and who informed the Minister of that?

Did the Minister refer to previous memoranda for Government in checking the appropriate and normal form and contents of memoranda in relation to the appointment of judges?

That is not my question. I did not ask about the handbook. Did the Minister check other memoranda?

It is very difficult when the questions are not answered.