Before we start, a number of typographical errors that have been identified in the Bill, as amended by the Seanad. Pursuant to Standing Order 203, I request the Ceann Comhairle to direct the Clerk to make the following corrections of a typographical nature to the Bill.

In Seanad amendments Nos. 46, 57, 68, 84 and 85, in respect of the inserted subsection (6)(b) of section 68, subsection (1) of section 79, subsection (2) of section 90, item 19 of Schedule 2 and item 1 of Schedule 3, respectively, I ask that the Clerk be directed to change the word "listed" to "specified" wherever it occurs.

In Seanad amendment No. 46, in respect of the inserted subsection (6) of section 68, I ask that the Clerk be directed to insert a closing bracket after the term "arrival time".

In Seanad amendment No. 52, in respect of the inserted subsection (5) of section 74, I ask that the Clerk be directed to insert the word "shall" in between the word "staff" and the term "be accountable". It will now read "the member of staff shall be accountable".

In Seanad amendment No. 57, in respect of the inserted subsection (1) of section 79, I ask that the Clerk be directed to remove the comma after the term "Schedule 4".

In Seanad amendment No. 68, in respect of the inserted subsection (3)(a)(1) of section 90, I ask that the Clerk be directed to insert the term "purpose of" after the term "necessary for the". It will now read, "the transfer of the data to the competent authority is necessary for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating".

In Seanad amendment No. 71, in respect of the inserted subsection (8) of section 93, I ask that the Clerk be directed to change the cross-referenced subsection from "subsection (4)" to "subsection (5)". It will now read "where the Independent Authority revokes an authorisation under subsection (5)".

I will direct the Clerk to make those changes.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle.

Seanad amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 81 are related and will be discussed together.

Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 81 have been grouped and I will speak to them together. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the commencement of the Bill and amend section 1(4), which provides for said commencement. Currently, provision is made for all provisions to be commenced by ministerial order, with certain listed exceptions which are to come into effect on enactment.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 amend section 1(4) to provide for the following provisions of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, to come into effect on enactment: subsections (1) and (4) of section 1, section 4(b)(i), section 43, section 69, insofar as it relates to the Courts Service, section 70, section 74 and Parts 3 and 4, along with the Part to be inserted that amends the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926.

I will now turn to amendment No. 81. This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule. Other operational criminal justice agencies such as the Irish Prison Service, the Probation Service and Forensic Science Ireland, being under the direct aegis of my Department, are already specified bodies under the Schedule. The Legal Aid Board is also a specified body.

Amendment No. 81 proposes to further amend Schedule 5 to the 2005 Act in order to add the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, as a specified body and to remove the current restriction on An Garda Síochána, whereby it is a specified body only in relation to its own members. Critically, this amendment will also facilitate the development of a unique identifier across the criminal justice system. I think this is something that is going to be very beneficial.

It is quite phenomenal that we are dealing with such a number of amendments from the Seanad. I reiterate a point I have made on every Stage of this Bill. Before the Minister gets overly sensitive, I absolutely accept that miscellaneous Bills have their place, particularly when we are dealing with minor technical matters or matters that are in some way related. There are important provisions in this legislation that I welcome.

The extensive range of unrelated issues dealt with, without what I consider to be appropriate levels of scrutiny ,has done a huge disservice to many of the good aspects being dealt with in the legislation. The truth of the matter is that there are good provisions in this Bill that just did not get the level of scrutiny warranted. When this legislation is made law, major aspects of it will not have been dealt with during pre-legislative scrutiny and were only touched upon on Committee and Report Stages.

A great deal of the debate on this Bill was taken up by the issue of counselling notes. It has been proven by that debate that this issue should have been a stand-alone matter. It rightly consumed most of the discussion on Committee and Report Stages. Yet we still did not have enough time to tease out amendments to improve what the Minister has in this Bill, including the more serious concern that these provisions will allow the practice of the defence of an alleged offender in sexual violence trials to continue to be able to seek the disclosure of counselling notes under the provision of the interests of justice.

It is appropriate that we commend all those victims and survivors who engaged with us throughout the consideration of this Bill and who laid out in stark terms the impact of this practice. We will see in practice how curtailed it becomes as a result, but it has to be said that the manner in which this issue has been dealt with has compounded some of the trauma outlined. I know that many people had hoped that the Minister would, even at a later stage, introduce a full ban on the disclosure of counselling notes. There will be a huge amount of scrutiny. I hope that the Minister is right that, in reality, when it comes to the practice of the courts, we will actually see a fundamental change in their approach in dealing with this matter.

In terms of the legislation, as well as the breadth of the issues covered in the Bill, the other problem is the number of amendments the Minister has introduced on every Stage on new and unrelated matters that just have not been discussed in this House at all and will not get discussed here because of guillotines being applied and the Minister refusing to allow the justice committee to deal with this legislation in an appropriate way. I know the Minister is eager and anxious to get laws passed, and, in one way, that is commendable. I do, however, have a fundamental problem with the whole notion of scrutiny having been thrown out.

I must say that the additions in respect of aid to the civil power remain the most inexplicable, because this is a defence matter. It necessitated a change to the Title of the Bill, never mind anything else. It also necessitated the Minister for Defence appearing before the justice committee. I do not know how the said Minister deals with things in her own sectoral committee, but I have never seen a more ill-prepared Minister in the justice committee, or a Minister unable to answer what should have been basic questions that were put to her.

Hear, hear.

The questions put to her on that day at the justice committee still have not been answered. We still do not know the rationale for the changes, the way they were brought about and the urgency with which they were brought about. I just do not think it is appropriate that such new matters were brought into the Bill on every Stage, including during the Stages in the committee and in the Dáil.

I hope the Minister will reflect on all of that over the summer. It is for these reasons that I have opposed the Bill at every stage. It was primarily because of the approach taken to counselling notes, but also the approach taken to the Bill as a whole. This is the reason why I will be voting against the final passage of the legislation. I just want to put that on the record because, notwithstanding that, there are some extremely important legislative changes in this Bill that I do support. Had the Minister taken a different approach, I think he would have had unanimous support in these Houses on every Stage, which should have been the way of doing things when we are dealing with issues that, in many cases, have been long campaigned for. I am thinking of the issue of the retrospective disregarding of convictions for gay men, and other extremely important issues that have come about as a result of decades of campaigning. They should not have been put into a Bill that has become divisive as a result of the political decisions made concerning how this legislation would be pushed through the House.

A couple of weeks back in this Chamber, when discussing the previous Stage of this Bill, I looked up the Gallery. In the Gallery there were campaigners who campaigned for decades, some of whom were friends of mine, for the removal of historical convictions for gay men. In another part of the Gallery were women who had to come before a committee and relive their trauma and ask for change when it comes to the use of counselling notes in rape cases.

I do not believe it is good practice. I understand the concept of a miscellaneous Bill but where there are issues of such unimaginable importance being discussed in the same legislation, it creates confusion. The confusion for us is immaterial but that does not matter. We can catch up but for advocacy groups and campaigners, it leaves them in a very different situation. I do not believe for a second it is good practice.

Within this Bill there are issues pertaining to the use of pepper spray and incapacitant spray in prisons. It is an area I feel deeply passionate about. I did not get any chance to really scrutinise those aspects of this Bill on any of the Stages.

There is the issue of aid to civil powers which was quite bizarre when it was brought to the justice committee with the Minister for Defence there. I appreciate the Minister is in a hurry but his hurry should not disregard parliamentary norms and the idea of scrutiny. There are many great aspects in this Bill, which I will vote for, but we should not do business like this. A lot of things are going on. We are into our third hour discussing issues in relation to District Court and Circuit Court without even mentioning that there is chaos reigning as we speak. I will support this Bill.

Amendments Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, and 87 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

These amendments relate to the authority of An Garda Síochána to deploy radio frequency jammers to counteract drones. I am advised that these legislative amendments are necessary to confirm that An Garda Síochána has the legal powers where necessary and proportionate to deal with dangerous or hostile drone activity through the use of what are called “radio frequency jammers”.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are technical in nature and simply deal with references to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 and the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024.

Amendment No. 5 amends section 3(6) of the 1926 Act to ensure that the general prohibition on the possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus without a licence from ComReg does not apply to a radio frequency jammer kept by An Garda Síochána for the purpose of working or using it in accordance with the proposed new sections 12(1B) and 12B(1B) of the 1926 Act.

Amendments No. 7 and 8 are consequential in nature. At present, sections 12 and 12B of the 1926 Act provide for offences and monetary penalties for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus to interfere with other such apparatus which would at present apply to An Garda Síochána if it used this equipment.

Amendment No. 87 amends the Long Title of the Bill to reference the amendments to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926.

Seanad amendments Nos. 9 to 18, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

These amendments relate to the non-judicial role of the Chief Justice.

Amendment No. 9 deals with section 6 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil. It amends section 67 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936, which provides for the superior courts rules committee to allow the Chief Justice to nominate an ordinary judge of the Supreme Court. These changes are being introduced to reduce the non-judicial workload of the Chief Justice and the respective courts.

Amendments Nos. 10 to 18, inclusive, amend section 8 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil which amends sections 12 and 44 of the Judicial Council Act 2019 in relation to the membership of the board of the Judicial Council and the judicial conduct committee.

The proposed further amendments provide for the revocation at any time of a nomination to act as chair of the board or the judicial conduct committee and for a cessation of effect of nominations for a judge performing the functions of the Chief Justice.

Seanad amendments Nos. 19, 29, 88 and 90 are related and may be discussed together.

Amendment No. 19 inserts a new section into the Bill to amend section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984. It inserts new subsections (2) to (6) into section 10 to provide a statutory basis for the admissibility of certificates of results of Garda-administered presumptive drug testing, PDT. It introduces a legal presumption in favour of the evidential value of such certificates subject to rebuttal evidence.

Amendment No. 29 inserts a new section into the Bill to amend section 154 of the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014 to allow the director of Forensic Science Ireland to delegate his or her functions under the amended section 10 of the 1984 Act to appropriate officers of FSI.

Amendments Nos. 88 and 90 amend the Long Title consequential on the addition of these amendments.

Seanad amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, and 89 are related and may be discussed together.

These amendments, in fairness to Deputy Carthy, arise as a result of an amendment he tabled on Committee Stage and Report Stage in the Dáil. I accepted his amendment, which inserts a new section into the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to provide that where a person is convicted of any indictable offence, character evidence for sentencing purposes must be given on oath or by affidavit. That amendment was included as section 17 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil. The purpose of amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 is to tighten up the drafting and address a number of drafting and consequential matters arising.

Amendment No. 20 deletes the existing section 23 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil and amendment No. 22 inserts in its place a new stand-alone provision, which is substantively the same, but is more precisely drafted and contains a transitional provision. Amendment No. 21, therefore, repeals that provision to prevent duplication on the Statute Book.

Amendment No. 23 inserts a new Part into the Bill to amend the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 to address a specific public order issue, which is the deliberate use of face coverings for intimidatory purposes in public places, and particularly at protests. I stress that this is not a ban on face coverings, nor a ban on wearing face coverings at protests, nor does it create a general power for An Garda Síochána to require a person wearing a face covering in public to remove it. It is a limited addition to the public order framework, which may be exercised only in specific circumstances. The amendment provides that, where a member of An Garda Síochána suspects with reasonable cause that a person is acting in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable apprehension about public safety or for the maintenance of public peace and that the person is wearing the face covering with intent to intimidate another person or in a manner likely to intimidate another person, the garda may direct that person to desist from the conduct, remove the face covering and leave the vicinity. An offence only arises where a person "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse" fails to comply with that Garda direction. It will still be the case that people will be able to wear face masks for religious and cultural reasons and, even at a protest, people will still be able to wear a face mask. They may not want people to know they are there. The only time this public order offence would be triggered is in circumstances where a person is seeking to intimidate other people or it is likely a person's behaviour will intimidate them.

Amendment No. 89 amends the Long Title.

I thank the Minister for accepting my amendment on character references in trials. Unfortunately, we did not get to the amendment on Committee Stage. Reading back on the report, if I had been eating cornflakes, I would have nearly choked on them, such was my surprise that the Minister had accepted my amendment. I thank him for and commend him on doing so because it is a significant change to the law. It is a simple change, but will be helpful to victims and their families in their pursuit of justice.

The use of character references on sentencing in Irish courts has long been controversial and, in some cases, it has compounded the trauma of victims and their families. There has been an ongoing debate about the weight given to character references. Some judges have argued that they do not carry huge weight in determining the outcome of sentencing. That is debatable and certainly not an excuse for allowing what was a flawed system to continue. I have spoken to many people who were devastated as character references came out. Particularly where guilty pleas apply, as someone pleads guilty the whole details of the case might not be divulged to the court and might not be made public. Then a character reference is read out at a sentencing hearing in public talking about how great the individual might have been.

There have been serious questions about the accuracy of some of the character references given in public. I have also heard about a case - this was particularly concerning - where people supplied character references but did not realise that they were for a court case, or knew it was for a court case but did not know what crimes applied. Then there were questions around the veracity because they were written documents.

An important and welcome change was introduced in respect of sexual offences cases. In such cases, in recent years, references have had to be given on oath or under affidavit and, crucially, can be cross-examined in court. It made sense that this be the case for all indictable offences. It made little sense to have a higher standard in respect of character references in some cases than in others, particularly when they can relate to very serious crimes, including unlawful killings.

I was clear. My impetus for tabling this amendment came from dealing with people who had been in a court that was dealing with the unlawful killing of their loved one and, at the end of the case, someone said this individual was a great person. The sense those families had was that the character references played a role in downplaying the seriousness of the offence or the impact on the victim because they focused on the offender's reputation.

I met one victim in respect of whom a sentence for coercive control had been secured. The conviction was welcome and difficult, as can be imagined, and then an employer talked about how great the convicted person was at showing up to work on time, always left the place tidy and got on well with all their colleagues. None of that could possibly have had any implication in whether a person was engaged in coercively controlling their partner behind closed doors. I do not know. In fairness, the sentence in that case was reflective of the seriousness of the crime, but at the same time, it was difficult for the victim to hear that being read out. It transpired in that case - it was one of the cases I mentioned, as I contacted the employer involved - that the employer had no idea what the charge being dealt with was and the employer was subsequently embarrassed about it. In that instance, if people know that they are providing a reference they have to give under oath or by affidavit and that they could be cross-examined, we can be damn sure that employers would make sure they knew what they were giving a reference for beforehand.

I am pleased that will now change as a result of the Minister accepting this amendment. I support the Seanad amendment. It is set out in a clear way how this will apply. It is a major step forward for fairness and accountability in our courts and for victims who have been traumatised by the existing system, so I thank the Minister.

I will deal with two of the amendments in a moment, but first I add my voice to those who have already made the point about the modus operandi of how this Bill was developed and evolved with the adding of extra issues again and again. The last night, on the counselling notes issue, every Opposition party recognised it should have been dealt with as a separate issue because of its importance to survivors and because it was the Minister's first Bill on court processes. He has introduced other legislation, including Jennie's law and the law about the children of victims of femicide or murder, which I welcome. However, the way survivors were treated needs to be raised again. The last night we were here, we had approximately 40 minutes for the entire debate and, because we worked together, we at least maximised that time. However, survivors left here upset that night. They continued and followed the Bill to the Seanad, which was a slightly more positive experience because they at least heard the arguments we had been articulating, which probably got more time there. That made them feel somewhat better. However, particularly that night, they saw that one amendment was voted on and that they were just not listened to. This should not happen again, particularly with an issue of such importance.

I will raise two issues. The first is face coverings at protests. I have been at protests where people wore face coverings.

During the Covid pandemic, that was obviously a normal thing to do. The Debenhams workers were on strike throughout the pandemic, having been sacked by a multinational. We always encouraged people to wear face coverings, even when outside. However, there are people who wear face coverings not just for religious or cultural reasons, but for medical reasons. I know disabled activists who will not attend any event unless they can wear a mask. The Minister may say they will be protected in that but he knows that things like this can be abused. I am just not sure why he has included this provision in relation to protests. It may need a bit more explanation but here we are on the second last night of the Dáil term. I do not support what the Minister has included. It is something that needs a lot more debate. We all know that some people can cover their faces to intimidate others. I accept that but this is being introduced with 50 other issues in this Bill.

I will make a point about character references. I obviously support the amendment but we do have to return to this whole issue of character references in trials. On the one hand, I know the Minister would say that people have a right to a fair trial and that this is part of the very important constitutional right to a fair trial. That is a bit ironic because we also have non-jury courts. How do those things balance each other or even match? We say that the use of counselling notes and character references must be allowed and yet we can have non-jury trials. This is something that should be examined.

The upcoming Oireachtas committee may be able to examine it in more detail because these references are a real problem with regard to gender-based violence, given particular dynamics that pertain to gender-based and sexual violence. Most people who are given these references are not experts. A constituent contacted me who was the victim of sexual assault. Their brother was convicted of this but got a suspended sentence. This constituent believes that is because references were read out as the very last word in that trial. This man was convicted but then, all of a sudden, these references were read out. The references were from the father of the wife of the perpetrator. How is this person an expert in the dynamics of child sexual abuse? My constituent believes that this had an impact on the judge. We also know from several studies that men - women can obviously also commit gender-based violence but male violence is mainly the issue - who perpetrate domestic violence, coercive control or sexual violence are arch-manipulators. They are exceptionally skilled at deceiving people. They put one face on in public and another face on in private. There is a real problem with character references in these cases. It really is something that needs to be looked at. It has caused huge offence.

There is another thing the Minister could clear up. We were told that the Government had already changed the law so that a person had to be in court and ready to give, under oath-----

That is for sexual offences.

That did not happen in the recently reported case involving a former Fianna Fáil TD. He was not called up to testify.

It predated the legislation.

The Minister will have an opportunity to come back in.

I am just asking why it did not happen in that case. Was it because it was about parole? Is there a difference in that case?

I ask the Deputy to stick to the amendment.

It does not seem to have been fully applied. We definitely need to discuss this topic again.

I presume that was because the offence in that case predated the new legislation brought in requiring oral evidence in respect of references in cases of sexual offences. As a result of the amendment, this provision will now cover all indictable offences.

Seanad amendments Nos. 24 to 27, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Amendments Nos. 24 to 27, inclusive, have been grouped. They relate to Part 11 of the Bill, which concerns the International Criminal Court. They are of a minor and very technical nature.

Amendments Nos. 30 to 42, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

These are the amendments in respect of the disregard section of the Bill, which is Part 15. Amendments Nos. 30 to 36, inclusive, and 39 to 41, inclusive, are minor textual amendments to make certain terms and references clearer and more precise. The purpose of the remaining amendments is to make the provisions relating to the revocation of a disregard clearer and more robust, including certain procedural steps that could otherwise be regarded as implicit.

Amendment No. 37 inserts a new section obliging a relevant public body to make the Minister aware if it becomes aware of information indicating that a disregard may have been granted on foot of false or misleading information.

Amendment No. 38 amends section 60 of the Bill as passed by the Dáil to broaden the matters to which the Minister must have regard before forming an initial view that a disregard should be revoked.

Amendment No. 42 inserts a new subsection into section 61 in order to make express provision for the Minister to proceed with revoking a disregard where the applicant has not requested a review of the proposed revocation within the allotted timeframe or the Minister reasonably considers such a request to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unfounded.

Amendments Nos. 43 to 80, inclusive, 84 to 86, inclusive, and 91 are related and may be discussed together.

These amendments concern the use of electronic means. The main body of the amendments relate to passenger name records. I will briefly deal with amendments Nos. 43 to 45. These put in a new Part 17 relating to electronic technology in certain proceedings. Amendment No. 43 inserts a new section defining the types of proceedings in question. Amendments 44 and 45 insert two new sections to provide respectively that court rules may, in relation to such proceedings, make provision for the electronic transmission of documents. These amendments are modelled on equivalent legislation that is already in place in respect of civil proceedings.

I will now turn to amendments Nos. 46 to 80, inclusive, 84 to 86, inclusive, and 91. These relate to passenger name record data. They propose the insertion of a new Part 17. Passenger name record data, PNR data, consists of booking information provided by passengers, which is collected by and held in the airlines’ reservation and departure control systems. This provision is already in place a result of Ireland's transposition of the PNR directive by way of the 2018 EU PNR data regulations, which established a unit within the Department of justice.

The regulations apply the regime only to what are referred to as extra-EU flights, which is required by the directive. The purpose here is to apply them to internal EU flights as well.

Amendments Nos. 46 to 50, inclusive, insert Chapter 1 of Part 17. They are standard legislative provisions that refer to a definition sections and such other matters.

Amendment Nos. 51 to 56, inclusive, insert Chapter 2. This chapter relates to the Irish passenger information unit, its director, its data protection officer, other staff and its obligations as regards processing and reporting activities.

Amendments Nos. 57 to 59, inclusive, insert Chapter 3. Amendment No. 57 provides for the competent authorities designated under the 2018 regulations to remain so designated. Amendment No. 58 provides that the Minister may designate a person as the “Independent Authority” for the purposes of the State’s PNR regime. Amendment No. 59 sets out the Data Protection Commission’s oversight function as regards this legislation.

Amendments 60 to 62, inclusive, inserts new Chapter 4 of Part 17. The chapter provides for the designation by the PIU of individual intra-EU flights that will be encompassed by the State’s PNR regime. Amendment No. 62 provides for designation of all-intra EU flights unilaterally when the State is faced with a genuine and present or foreseeable terrorist threat, but only on approval by the High Court.

Amendments Nos. 63 to 71, inclusive, deal with the transfer and exchange of PNR data. Amendment No. 63 refers to airlines’ obligations to transfer PNR data to the PIU a day before take-off. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 refer to the process undertaken by the PIU of assessing the transferred PNR data against serious crime or terrorism watchlists and pre-determined criteria to identify persons of interest due to take the flight or on-board.

Amendments Nos. 66 to 71, inclusive, deal with requests for PNR data held by the PIU from competent authorities in the State, PIUs in other EU countries, Europol and third countries, as well requests by the Irish PIU and other authorities.

Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 deal with the retention periods for PNR data and maintenance of documentation by the PIU.

Amendments Nos. 74 to 80, inclusive, insert chapter 7 of Part 17. It deals with transitional provisions.

Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and 86 insert Schedules 2, 3 and 4 into the Bill. Schedule 2 defines the data categories that make up the PNR data. Schedule 3 lists the competent authorities in the State that can request PNR data.

Amendment No. 91 amends the Long Title consequential on these amendments.

Amendment No. 82 is to be discussed with amendments Nos. 83 and 92. They are related and will be discussed together.

Amendment No. 82 makes a number of technical amendments to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020. It also repeals two redundant provisions of the 2020 Act.

Amendment No. 83 amends the Criminal Justice (Perjury and Related Offences) Act 2021. It is a purely consequential amendment to take account of the proposed insertion in this Bill of a provision for statements of truth in criminal and international co-operation proceedings.

Amendment No. 92 amends the long title consequential on amendments Nos. 82 and 83.

The agreement to the Seanad amendments is reported to the House and a message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it accordingly.