Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 31, and amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to amendment No. 3, are related and will be discussed together.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do we have a grouping list?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I imagine it has been given out already.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are not online. I did not see them. Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle read the grouping again?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 31, and amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to amendment No. 3, are related and will be discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 28, to delete "Sections 3 and 5" and substitute "Parts 3, 4, 7 and 9 and section 14(d)".

Amendments Nos. 1 and 31 are with regard to the Long Title. These are consequential amendments to provide for the insertion of these proposed amendments to the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956. Amendment No. 1 provides for the insertion of these amendments to the Bill. Amendment No. 31 provides for the consequential change in the name of the Long Title of the Bill.

Amendment No. 3 proposes to insert a new section 4A into the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 as well as to amend sections 19(2) and 19(3) of that Act. I will outline the purpose of this. I propose the insertion of a new section 4A into the 1956 Act to allow for the electronic service of notices under this particular Act. This is in line with the Department's modernisation goal to move towards a more efficient delivery of services. The amendment mirrors similar amendments introduced last year to the International Protection Act 2015 and the Immigration Act 1999, by way of the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, to allow for electronic service of notices. I wish to highlight that as with other Acts, notices may only be served electronically where the person has provided their consent for this. This is in relation to the citizenship Act to allow us to do things online. It is part of the overall modernisation programme but any time we engage with an individual online it must be with their consent and permission. This is to bring us in line with other changes that have been made.

The amendments to sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the 1956 Act restore the power of the Minister for Justice to revoke certificates of naturalisation under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956. This power has been unusable since the Supreme Court judgment in the Damache case found the process used to revoke citizenship certificates under the Act lacked the necessary safeguards. This amendment therefore bolsters safeguards to ensure the procedure used for revocation is robust and fair. Again, this restores a power that had existed for the Minister. It must be noted that the circumstances in which certificates can be revoked under section 9(1) of the Act remain unchanged. This power is used extremely sparingly. In fact, it has been used eight times in total.

The revocation of Irish citizenship is only undertaken in the most serious of circumstances. The loss of citizenship has serious consequences and each case is considered very carefully. The Department has engaged extensively with the Office of the Attorney General to develop a new procedure to take account of the Supreme Court's findings on fair procedures. Previously where a person was informed of the Minister's intention to revoke their certificate of naturalisation, they had a right to request a committee of inquiry to examine the Minister's decision. The committee then reported its findings to the Minister but, crucially, the Minister was not obliged to accept the committee's findings. Under the new procedure the Minister will first write to the person concerned where he or she is considering revocation of a certificate of naturalisation. The Minister will provide the reasons for the proposal, subject to national security limitations. The person concerned will have 28 days to make representations to the Minister on foot of the notice. At this point the Minister will make a decision on the revocation, taking into consideration the representations made, if any. The Minister will write to the person outlining the decision and the reasons, subject to the same national security restrictions.

Where the Minister's decision is to revoke the certificate, the person will be entitled to request that the committee of inquiry examine the decision. The committee will be chaired by a retired judge of the Circuit Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and will also have two ordinary members whom the Minister deems to have appropriate qualifications. The committee will operate independently of the Minister and will have the option of affirming or setting aside the decision of the Minister. In coming to this decision the committee will hear from the Minister and the person concerned and may have regard to other matters it deems relevant. The committee will notify the person and the Minister of its decision and provide the reasons for same, with similar restrictions if there are issues regarding national security concerns.

I am satisfied this new procedure meets the high standards of natural justice mandated by the Damache judgment. It provides more opportunities to be heard and ensures the committee's decision is binding on the Minister. Overall, this is about improving the rights and protections in a revocation case. We are responding to the recent ruling and reinstating with these protections what has already existed in law for the Minister for Justice. I stress again this is a power that has been used eight times in total. It is not something that is used regularly. The number of times it has been used is minimal. This is just to allow the ability for the Minister to do this to continue.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is very much downplaying what is a fundamental change in law. It is a matter of constitutional law, as determined by the Supreme Court. I make the general point that it is unfortunate that such a change would be brought in as a Committee Stage amendment without proper pre-legislative scrutiny. A number of external bodies, including the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, have significant views to express on this. I do not agree with the Minister that this is a small matter which is regularising an issue.

In October 2020, as the Minister has said, the Supreme Court in Damache v. Minister for Justice held that the current system for the revocation of citizenship acquired through naturalisation is unconstitutional. The court's findings centred on the lack of an independent decision-maker in the revocation process. It was held that the procedure, which the Minister instanced had been used eight times, was systemically flawed. The Minister for Justice stated on Second Stage of the Bill that section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 would be amended to give effect to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Damache case.

In Irish law a person's citizenship may only be revoked if they are a naturalised citizen. This means those who acquire citizenship through the naturalisation process do so on a contingent basis. Section 18 of the 1956 Act states that every person to whom a certificate of naturalisation is granted shall, from the date of issue and so long as the certificate remains unrevoked, be an Irish citizen.

In essence, this places naturalised citizens on a different footing from those of us who acquired citizenship by birth. There is in a very real sense unequal citizenship.

Revocation of citizenship is an executive decision made by the Minister for Justice. In Ali Charaf Damachev the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Supreme Court based its findings of unconstitutionality on the systemic flaws in the current procedure. It held that the process provided for under section 19 of the 1956 Act did not afford the procedural safeguards required to meet appropriate standards of natural justice, bearing in mind the potential severity of the consequences that occur when a person's citizenship is revoked. In essence, because the Minister both proposes revocation and, following consideration of the non-binding findings of a committee of inquiry, makes the final decision, the revocation process was found by the Supreme Court to be lacking an impartial and independent decision maker. A central point of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Damache case was the gravity of the consequences of revocation of citizenship. We can all envisage what it would mean. It was due largely to the potential severity of the outcomes of a revocation that it associated fair procedure requirements and it is why those requirements are so high.

I want to put on the record that we are grateful to the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for providing comparative information. Its briefing states that the power to deprive dual nationals of their citizenship exists in the law of a number of states and that in recent decades in particular, there has been a resurgence in the prevalence of the usage of such revocation. Revocation is typically based on one of three grounds. The first is where citizenship was acquired through some form of fraud or deception and so the individual was never actually entitled to citizenship. The second is a failure of some form of residence requirement or the acquisition of another nationality and the third ground is a lack of loyalty to the state or actions otherwise contrary to the common good, usually as a result of some form of terrorist activity.

I do not believe there is any controversy about cancelling or revoking a grant of citizenship obtained by fraud. There probably would be consensus on that in the House. However, the third ground in particular has proved contentious for a variety of reasons. Revoking citizenship on grounds of disloyalty, according to the Library and Research Service, is widely viewed as being primarily a counter-terrorism response, especially a way to address national security questions. This response is described as "a reinvigoration of security-based denationalisation" - it is a mouthful of a sentence, but it captures the idea well - a practice that has been largely unused for several decades. I will quote from the Oireachtas report:

The justificatory language used in this context focuses both on revocation in such instances being in the public interest and as a valid form of sanction for the individual’s lack of loyalty to the State. This is a view whereby citizenship is a “privilege” which may be lost due to lack of national fidelity. This view of revocation as a punitive measure is becoming increasingly common.

My advice is that we need to proceed cautiously. I note the authors of several editions of Kelly: The Irish Constitution argued that the constitutionality of section 19 was highly questionable. In particular, they focused on section 19(1)(b) of the 1956 Act, which permits revocation where the person to whom citizenship has been granted has "by any overt act, shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State". The phrasing here comes from Article 9.3 of the Constitution, which states:

Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens.

It is worth noting that these duties are referred to as political rather than legal duties in the Constitution. It is also worth noting that these duties are expressly stated to be owed by all citizens and not just a category of citizen who happen to have become citizens through naturalisation. Nonetheless, this piece of political rhetoric has been taken from the Constitution and inserted as a statutory test. Those who fail that test can have their citizenship revoked. What the Constitution refers to as a political duty has been transformed by statute into a legal duty. It is hard to see that it serves properly as a legal duty because it is so difficult - I suggest almost impossible - to legally define. According to the authors of Kelly: The Irish Constitution, the duty and fidelity criteria in section 19 are so vague that they invite "an unpredictable, subjective application of a kind hostile to the concept of due process or due course of law". This argument was not considered by the Supreme Court in the Damache case, but it may well arise again and there are other worrying aspects.

The United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness is a 1961 UN multilateral treaty, whereby sovereign states agreed to reduce the incidence of statelessness. It creates positive obligations on states to eliminate and prevent statelessness in national legislation. Under Article 8.1 of that convention, "A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless". That is a legal obligation under the UN convention to which we are a party. We acceded to that convention in 1973, subject to the following reservation:

Ireland retains the right to deprive a naturalised Irish citizen of his citizenship pursuant to section 19(1)(b) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 on grounds specified in the aforesaid paragraph.

In short, this reservation means that Ireland is not legally obliged to consider potential statelessness when applying the section 19 revocation process against a person accused of disloyalty to the State.

The Library and Research Service states that the UK provides a useful point of comparison because until 2002, its system for revocation was similar the one currently in place in Ireland. It also states that the UK system was subsequently, the word used is "revitalised", and the UK powers to revoke citizenship are now unusually strong in international terms. UK Governments, which I stress have been Tory Party Governments in recent times, now have at their disposal powers to strip citizenship that are arguably broader than those possessed by any other western democratic state.

We should not be looking to the UK when adopting our approach to citizenship. The Library and Research Service also informed us, that New Zealand has adopted an approach that tends not to favour the revocation of citizenship of those who engage in terrorist activities and instead focuses on an appropriate domestic criminal law remedy. In Canada, a debate took place on new powers to revoke citizenship, essentially as a punitive measure. That is what it is in this Bill. It is using the revocation of citizenship as a method of punishment. It was argued that revocation as punishment does not provide an effective deterrent to those engaged in terrorist activities, but it reinforces that we have two classes of citizenship. If we go down this road, if naturalised citizens are accused of disloyalty, it will be possible for them to be punished by having their citizenship revoked, whereas Irish born citizens can be as disloyal as they like, subject to the law, but cannot have their citizenship - which is a fundamental right - revoked.

The Canadian approach provides an example of a state that introduced new revocation legislation in response to current events but which subsequently changed its mind and decided such powers were excessive.

We have tabled four amendments to the Minister's amendment No. 3. I will deal with amendment No. 2 to the amendment, which is out of order, separately. Amendment No. 1 to the amendment is:

After section 3(a), to insert the following: “(b) in section 19 (1) (b), by the deletion of “, by any overt act,” and the substitution of “, by any overt and specified act,”,”

Section 19(1)(b) of the 1956 Act provides that the Minister may revoke a certainty of naturalisation if satisfied "the person to whom it was granted has, by any overt act, shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State". The amendment to the amendment is proposing the test be made clearer by referring to an overt and specified act. Basic rules of natural justice and fair procedure mean if you are accused of doing something wrong, you must be told what wrong thing you are accused of doing. You must be given particulars of the wrongdoing; otherwise, you cannot defend yourself against the accusation. Introducing the word "specified" therefore provides a safeguard against a vague or nebulous charge.

Our second amendment to the Minister's amendment has been ruled out of order. Prima facie, it does not directly relate to the Minister's amendment. Having regard to Salient Ruling 142(c), the Chair might be minded to reconsider the ruling. The precedent suggests when dealing with amendments to an amending Bill, amendments involving new matter may be permitted when the Bill is of a miscellaneous character. This Bill falls into that characterisation. This is an important principle. The House should not be confined to considering just the existing proposed amendments in a miscellaneous provisions Bill. We could not have proposed our stand-alone amendment to the 1956 Act since the amending of the Act from the beginning was outside the scope of the Bill as published. The Bill initially was not amending this Act and it falls within the scope of the Bill only because we were instructed at the start of the debate to return this debate to Committee Stage. We have had no opportunity to table this amendment other than as an amendment to an amendment. We will have no opportunity to table it on Report Stage because there will be no Report Stage amendments. None will be permitted because we are going directly to Report Stage after Committee Stage. The result of the procedure is, although amending the 1956 Act will fall within the scope of the Bill after this amendment, no amendment other than the amendment proposed by the Minister is or could be permissible. The spirt of Salient Ruling 142C suggests to my judgment a more permissive approach to the amendment to the amendment might be adopted. Otherwise, in essence we are saying the Minister can come in and basically recharacterise the Bill to amend a long-existing statute but nobody else can amend the statue because of the procedure we are adopting. Maybe the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will reflect on that.

Will I make a case for the second amendment to the amendment, briefly?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, yes.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The second amendment to the amendment would amend section 19(1) of the 1956 Act by deleting the ground for revocation of citizenship provided for in paragraph (e) of the subsection. That ground is that a person to whom citizenship was granted has by a voluntary act other than marriage or civil partnership acquired another citizenship. This ground reinforces the notion we have two classes of Irish citizen and naturalised citizens are separate, distinct and unequal to those of us born in this country and citizens by birth. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle or I could go on to become dual citizens. We could acquire dual, triple or quadruple citizenship if we like. Irish law has no objection to that so long as the entitlement is exercised by a natural born citizen. However, according to paragraph (e), if a naturalised citizen acquires another citizenship, the Minister can retaliate by revoking his or her Irish citizenship. I do not think there is a rationale for that and submit through the amendment to the amendment that the paragraph be repealed.

Our third amendment to the Minister's amendment is:

After subsection (1O) proposed to be inserted by section 3(b), to insert the following: “(1OA) In a case to which subsection (1)(b) applies, nothing in subsection (1O) relieves the Minister or the Committee of Inquiry, as the case may be, of the obligation to specify the overt act referred to in that paragraph.”.

This requires explanation. The Minister's amendment outlines a new procedure to be followed where it is proposed to revoke a person's Irish citizenship. The new procedure would be inserted into section 19 of the 1956 Act as subsections (1)(a) and (1)(p). It provides a citizen must be given some detail of the case against them so that according to subsection (1)(b) a notice of the Minister's intention to revoke must inform the person of the reasons for the opinion of the Minister; under subsection (1)(e), if the Minister makes a decision to revoke, the person must be informed of the reasons for the decision; and under subsection (1)(m), when a committee of inquiry decides to affirm the decision of the Minister, it must provide reasons for its decision.

The requirements to give reasons in these three stages are all made subject to an exception provided for in subsection (1O). By that subsection, the requirement to give reasons does not apply to either the Minister in her actions or the committee of inquiry where it considers specifying the reasons for the decision would be contrary to the interest of national security. That is what the Minister is proposing. Consider how to apply that exception to a case under section 19(1)(b) where it is alleged, for example, that a naturalised citizen "has, by any overt act, shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State". I emphasise the word "overt". It is the opposite of "covert". An overt act is done openly, publicly and in an obvious way. The Minister does not propose in any of her amendments to remove this test. The test permits her to move against a naturalised citizen on grounds of disloyalty by reference to the overt acts of the citizen.

This may be an inappropriate test. If so, the Minister should amend it but she has chosen not to do so. As matters stand, the Minister can only move against a citizen on the basis of a citizen's non-covert act. It must be done in public and visible. If that is all she can take into account, on what possible basis could she plead national security as a grounds for not giving a reason for her decision? National security cannot be a ground for cloaking decision-making in secrecy if the decision itself is only made on an act which, by definition, must be open and publicly known. I hope I am making my point clearly. The national security override might be understandable, although it would be controversial and debatable, if the Minister was entitled to proceed against a naturalised citizen as a result of evidence obtained by surveillance or surreptitious activities, but section 19 as presented to the House does not permit that. It restricts the Minister to dealing with revocation only by judgment of overt acts. Our amendment is based on a recognition of that reality. It provides that in a case where a citizen is accused of disloyalty based on his or her overt acts, as the Minister has determined, the national security override will not apply and the Minister will remain obliged to give reasons for the decision.

I now propose to deal with the proposed fourth amendment to the Minister's amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 3 reads as follows:

After subsection (1P) proposed to be inserted by section 3(b), to insert the following: “(1Q) In a case to which subsection (1) (b) applies, the Minister shall not decide to revoke a certificate of naturalisation, and the Committee of Inquiry shall not affirm such a decision unless the Minister or the Committee of Inquiry, as the case may be, is satisfied that the overt act concerned is so serious in nature that it shows that the obligations of citizenship have intentionally been abandoned.”

As I said, this is the fourth and final amendment to the Minister's very impactive amendment No. 3. It relates, as do all previous amendments, to section 19(1)(b) of the 1956 Act, which is the provision that entitles the Minister to revoke citizenship when satisfied that a person to whom it was granted, by an overt act, has shown himself or herself to have failed in his or her duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State. Our amendment is designed to strengthen the test involved in any such revocation, although we have reservations about whether it should be retained at all. However, this particular miscellaneous provisions legislation, this catch-all Bill is probably not the appropriate vehicle for debating first principles of citizenship law. Our amendment seeks to make it clear that the overt act concerned must be so serious in nature that it shows that the obligations of citizenship have intentionally been abandoned by the citizen. The reasoning behind our amendment is clear, bearing in mind that we, as native-born citizens, can break all manner of criminal or civil law and face the consequences of the courts, imprisonment or fines but not the drastic consequence that could be faced by a naturalised citizen of having citizenship revoked. A naturalised citizen should not be relegated to a contingent, second-class form of citizenship whereby he or she can have citizenship revoked for any reason short of behaviour that it amounts to an effective renunciation of citizenship. That is our contention.

I am sorry to have been so long-winded about these amendments but these are fundamental and serious matters that are, quite frankly, inappropriately dealt with in this short debate on a recommital motion on matters that have not been debatedvis-à-visfirst principles on Second Stage. I ask the Minister to progress very cautiously. The matters we have talked about as they relate to revocation of citizenship have already been dealt with by the Supreme Court. The judgments that we have had legal advice on are very extensive. It is interesting that different majorities within the Supreme Court of seven who looked at the Damache case came to different conclusions. It is a very stark warning to this Oireachtas to progress on this matter with great care, such is the fundamental importance of a person's citizenship.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Pringle has indicated. Did anyone else indicate?

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I did.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to speak to the section.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Murphy is next, followed by Deputies Pringle and Nash.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have listened very carefully to the arguments that have been made. Before every recess we have last-minute legislation and things that are rushed. It is possible to get one's head around some of the things that are rushed, but this Bill has potentially very serious consequences and I am not satisfied at all with being told that it is like a pat on the head and that it will only affect a tiny number of people. I am not satisfied with that because the principle is the critical issue.

I do not see how it is fair to ask us to go ahead with the Bill with this section included in the absence of a proper Second Stage debate or pre-legislative scrutiny on this particular aspect. We are here to do a serious job and that job is divided into various stages for very good reasons. Very powerful arguments have been made by the proposer of the amendments to amendment No. 3 that there is real risk associated with proceeding in the way proposed by the Minister tonight. This section needs to be taken out of the Bill. We need to be given time to consult, think and consider something that is of such importance. I do not understand why this requires to be rushed in this way. We are only seeing this for the first time this week. It undermines the good work that goes into legislation when we see this kind of thing happening. I urge the Minister to think carefully on this. The right thing for the Minister to do is to remove this section and give us time to give it further consideration. It is dangerous.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support what Deputy Howlin has outlined in his contribution although I am not going to go into the same level of detail as he did on foot of his legal advice. It is a very serious decision that the Department is making here, to introduce this in the way it is being introduced. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties had not even seen this and only heard about it today. The council sent an email this afternoon to Members in respect of the Minister's amendment. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission is deeply opposed to this. IHREC is a Government-funded organisation that does very good work and challenges what the Government is doing, which is very important. We had to submit amendments before we actually saw the Minister's proposed amendments to this Bill, which is a farce. The Government is making a farce of the legislative process. One could be forgiven for thinking that this is actually deliberate and is timed to come in at this stage, with amendments only coming through on one of the last sitting days of the Dáil term. This is going to be rushed through tonight. It is going to be railroaded through because the Minister has the numbers to do so but these are very serious changes that she is proposing to citizenship.

Yes, the Minister can say, as has been outlined, that this will affect only a small number of people and so on, but that is how it starts. It affects a small number of people now. In a few years' time, it will affect more and more people. We are reinforcing the idea that there are two classes of citizens in this country. That is wrong, and we should be cautious. If the Minister were to do things right, she would remove this provision from this legislation today and bring forward in September legislation that we could put through and discuss. Legislation could be passed probably by the end of the year in the normal way, with reasonable time to discuss it, and people could actually look at it and see what it means.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has outlined very serious concerns. It stated:

[T]he ... Bill does not provide the procedural safeguards required to meet the high standards of natural justice necessary to a person facing severe consequences described by the Supreme Court in Damache v Minister for Justice.

That is very strong language for the commission to use in relation to this matter. I am sorry, but the Department has taken a decision to rush the legislation through at this time. There is no doubt about that. The Minister will probably say that this is not the case, that it is by pure coincidence that this has come up at this time, that we have to put it through, that we are under pressure to sort it out and so on. In reality, however, this is being rushed through.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission goes on to state that "The ongoing lack of clarity on the appropriate threshold for the Minister to initiate a revocation process" is very concerning. It also states that there are "Unnecessarily short and unreasonable timeframes for a naturalised citizen facing revocation of citizenship to engage in the process". It is also concerned about "The level of independence afforded to the Committee of Inquiry" that has been established and "The extent to which procedural safeguards can be circumscribed when issues of national security are raised". The commission states: "The Bill gives the Minister wide scope to determine how the revocation mechanism will function in practice."

What is proposed will have wide-ranging implications right across the Government. It is bad practice. I have spoken about this every July since I have been here and highlighted that this always happens. It is part of the process. It is bad enough that any legislation would be done this way, but for legislation of this seriousness to be rushed through in this process is completely wrong. It is a shame on this House that it allows the Government to do this and it is a shame that the Government has put this forward.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to speak to the section as well. Before I do, however, I will raise some concerns I have about the way in which the Minister is approaching the question of the increase in optional retirement ages for members of uniformed services. I too place on the record my concerns about the manner in which the Minister is approaching this matter, which is extremely acute and extremely sensitive.

If the Minister does not want to listen to us as Opposition Members, I suggest she take the advice of not only the Irish Council for Civil Liberties but the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as well. She may be familiar - certainly, her officials will be - with the letter provided to Deputies this afternoon. Deputy Pringle read elements of that very important missive into the record this afternoon. We need to be more than cognisant of it. Arguably, if the Minister proceeds on this basis, creating two separate forms of citizenship, as it were, in the absence of all the safeguards to which Deputy Howlin and others referred, then there is a distinct possibility that this rushed legislation will find itself challenged at the first available opportunity in the superior courts. This is bad lawmaking. It is extremely risky. It is dangerous. We are routinely subjected to the situation we face this evening every July and every December: running up against the clock, finding down the back of the couch stray legislation that various Ministers want to introduce and inserting it into some kind of melange, some kind of miscellaneous provisions Bill, whereby provisions have no direct relationship at all with one another. That is, by definition, bad lawmaking. We can do better in this House, and the Minister can do better. I regret that we may be in a position in the next few months where she will regret taking this hasty approach. This can wait. Good lawmaking can wait. As Deputy Pringle said, the House is prepared to work with the Minister to finesse and nuance this legislation and to ensure that the best standards of human rights are applied to our interpretation of this and that we proceed in this direction safely and with caution and prudence. We are not doing that this evening.

If I may speak in general terms to this section of the Bill, I will have to refer to this through the lens of remarks I made on Second Stage about the decision made by the Minister - made, indeed, collectively by line Ministers - to increase the retirement age of uniformed services members from 60 to 62. No explicit reference to 62 is made in the legislation, and for a variety of reasons members of our uniformed services are concerned about the capacity of future Ministers to make unilateral decisions on the retirement age of uniformed services members, without any requirement to consult or engage with those members. They are members we say we all value to protect our State and to keep us secure. Those concerns are very well grounded. I spoke at length on Second Stage about the rationale for their concerns, and we in the Labour Party are extremely concerned about this. We know that a similar capacity to extend the retirement age of prison officers, for example, is available in the UK, and prison officers there now work until 68 years of age. It is not acceptable, not on, that the Minister would not provide in law for an obligation to be placed on future Ministers to consult and engage with recognised trade unions and recognised representative bodies of uniformed services members. They are public servants. We depend on them, as I said earlier, to protect us and to make our State secure. Again, we can do better.

Many of the uniformed services representative groups gave a guarded welcome to the idea that the retirement age would, on an optional basis, move to 62 at this point, but it was a guarded welcome and it came with conditions. There are concerns about the loss of fast accrual in terms of pension. If you go from 60 to 62, as this legislation is constructed, you fall back to the position where your pension rights for those two years go back to the idea of standard service, and that is it. That in itself is not good enough. The Minister will be aware from the Second Stage debate and, possibly, from direct contact from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that affiliated bodies are extremely concerned about the direction of travel of this and the discretion that future Ministers will have, whereby they will not be bound by an obligation to consult with trade unions and representative bodies.

I did attempt to amend this legislation in a way that we believe is well informed. We took advice in that regard. As for the amendments, while we always accept the intervention and the ruling of the Chair, we are concerned that there may be a misreading of what we were trying to achieve. Simply, what we were trying to achieve was to introduce an obligation on the Minister to consult - that is all - with recognised trade unions and representative bodies, and we made that point very clearly. I received last night notification from the Ceann Comhairle's office that the amendment brought forward by the Labour Party in my name was ruled out of order for a range of different reasons. I requested an explanation from the Ceann Comhairle's office in that regard and the explanation was, quite frankly, concerning. We do accept it as Members of the House, albeit grudgingly. It is important that we reflect on this for a moment. What I was seeking to do was simply to place an obligation on the Minister to consult. I was not imposing any form of responsibility on trade unions to decide themselves, but that seemed to be the interpretation placed on our proposed amendment by the Ceann Comhairle's office.

The ruling reads:

These [that is, trade unions and representative bodies ] are third-party bodies not under the auspices of the Minister or the Houses. This would have the effect of making the commencement of Part 7 [the relevant part of this Act], containing core provisions of the Bill, contingent on an administrative process which is external to the control of the Houses.

It is a long-established principle in the assessment of amendments which would have the effect of making the commencement of an Act, or core provisions thereof, contingent on administrative matters external to the control of the House must be seen as in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a second time; they limit the commencement in a manner that would be indeterminable by the Houses.

Those are very interesting remarks. My amendment does not, in fact, introduce a conflict; it introduces a restriction. In my view, this interpretation of what we are trying to achieve is a misreading and constitutes a form over-reach. It answers a question that I did not ask at all in the amendment I tabled.

The groups of workers who come under the aegis of this particular section of the Bill have very circumscribed collective bargaining rights. They understand and accept that because of the nature of the work they do and their relationship with the security and policing of the State. Quite frankly, they deserve better. It is not good enough that this requirement for consultation and debate will not be inserted into the legislation. I flagged very clearly on Second Stage that I would be proposing a variety of amendments on Committee Stage and subsequently on Report Stage. We know what has happened as regards Report Stage of the Bill.

I will repeat a point I have made because it is important. Under Salient Ruling 145, the amendment should have been permitted. On another salient ruling, Salient Ruling 148, in the context of the industrial policy of the State, a wider and relevant consideration under Salient Ruling 148, it cannot conceivably be argued that an amendment requiring consultation between an employer and trade unions is in conflict with the principles of a body of legislation governing the terms and conditions of employment of civil and public servants. This is where the misreading, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what we are trying to achieve stems from. Nobody is placing any kind of responsibility on a body outside of this House for making law or obstructing the making of law or ministerial decisions. It is merely about consultation. That is all. If we are now at a point where we cannot put into primary legislation the concept of a form of partnership, that has serious ramifications for industrial relations in this country and how we have de factodone things in this State for quite some time. I am concerned that we are not in a position to amend this Bill to place the Minister under that obligation to consult. I am especially concerned that we did not get the opportunity to explicitly include the age limit of 62 in the legislation because, as it is constructed, the Minister and future Ministers will have wide-ranging powers to make unilateral decisions about retirement ages within our uniformed services without an obligation to consult and engage.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a liquorice allsorts type of Bill. Some of it is very straightforward but it covers the broadcasting Bill and legislation on personal injuries, firearms and international protection. It proposes reducing the years of experience required to be a member of the tribunal from five years to two. Having been someone who was two years out from being a qualified solicitor, I have concerns that this might cause difficulties in the long run as regards decision-making and potential judicial reviews. It is unwise to reduce the years of experience required to two. There are also concerns about superannuation and ministerial discretion.

There are widespread concerns and a feeling that it is unnecessary to include the amendment we are discussing at the moment, which deals with the complex issue of citizenship, in this miscellaneous provisions type Bill in such a rushed way and that it may be much wiser to withdraw the amendment and have proper debate on it rather than rushing it through. I have not been in this House for too long but I know that a great deal of debate on legislation is thrown in at a very late stage. However, unless there is going to be an election in September or October, there would be time to do that. I am slightly concerned that is the reason we are not having a proper debate about the citizenship requirements in particular. I have asked the Minister to consider not proceeding with that amendment. As I have said, some parts of the legislation are relatively straightforward while others are not and require further detailed debate and consultation. That is clearly the case with this amendment.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know how many times I will get to speak tonight so I will speak on this amendment now. I thank Deputy Howlin for his forensic outlining of what is behind the amendment. I listened to him carefully. Having left the Chair, I walked around to get back into the mode of TD so that I would not confuse my role. When this came before us last week, I expressed my serious concerns at what the Dáil and the Government were doing. I will use my time to reiterate those concerns tonight because I have no doubt that this will end up before the courts. As parliamentarians, we simply cannot do our job.

This Bill, the Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, deals with a collection of serious topics and we are now making amendments that really should have been included in the Bill in the first place or been the subject of separate Bills. All I can do is to use my voice, as other TDs have done, to outline that this is not acceptable. Since the day I came here, Deputy Pringle has been advising people to watch July and Christmas, when legislation is forced through the Dáil.

I am not going to go into the minutiae of the amendment. That has already been done and I could not improve on or come near to what Deputy Howlin has done in that regard so I am going to use my time to refer to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. We rely on the council as we rely on the Oireachtas Library and Research Service's digest and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, because we could not possibly keep up to date with all that comes before us. However, we do take the time to try to read. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties became aware of this amendment from an IHREC press release. Imagine a body as important as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties becoming aware of this amendment in that manner. It is seriously deficient in every way. The press release is titled "Commission calls for Oireachtas to give appropriate time to consider important amendment" and deals with just one amendment. It reads:

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission ... has today written to Minister for Justice Helen McEntee for a second time to express significant concerns about the unacceptable haste in which the Government intends to amend legislation allowing for the revocation of naturalized Irish citizenship.

As Deputy Howlin, whom I have rarely quoted so often although I have no hesitation in doing so, has said, we are creating a two-tier system for citizenship. We have also done that with refugees, have we not? We have not learned from that. We created a two-tier system that differentiates between those fleeing Ukraine and those fleeing other countries and have got into an awful mess in that regard. We are now embedding this in legislation. The commission goes on to say:

This places a severe limit on the time available for appropriate pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed amending legislation to ensure that constitutionally compliant safeguards are built into it.

For the record, there was absolutely no pre-legislative scrutiny.

It continues:

The relevant proposed amendments were published yesterday, 9 July 2024, for insertion at Committee Stage. We believe it is the government's intention to pass the new law on revocation of naturalised citizenship by the end of next week.

The intention is to pass it tonight. Deputy Pringle has quoted some of that, so the point has been made. It was disingenuous in the extreme for the Taoiseach to say on the Order of Business that there is no limit. That was absolutely disingenuous because there is no limit in the sense that we can talk ad nauseam from now till tomorrow - all night if we want to - but it will not make a difference. It is disingenuous in the extreme to say there is no limit because the talking should have been done on pre-legislative scrutiny. That is what pre-legislative scrutiny is for. I ask the backbenchers to stand up and say that we should not do this, that this is not good law, that this is not a way to do business and certainly that it is not a way to instil trust in the democratic process. We need that trust now more than ever. We hear constantly about the rise of the right and about disinformation, and we need to counter that. I have repeatedly said that the best way to counter disinformation is to tell the truth, to lead with clear language and to let the democratic process take its place. I have the greatest respect for the democratic process. I have absolute disgust for the manner in which this has been pushed through not only because it will have the most serious consequences for those whose citizenship will be revoked in a two-tier open-ended manner without procedural safeguards, as has been pointed out by IHREC, but also because it is becoming a pattern, year after year, to rush things through in July and before Christmas. I will take no further time. I have made my point.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not intend to speak on this amendment but I will do so because a very interesting debate has commenced since I came into the Chamber. I came in here intending to speak on amendments Nos. 7 to 12, inclusive, which seek to give effect to another High Court decision - in the case of A & B v. the International Protection Office and the Minister - which was delivered in March of this year. The purpose of amendment No. 3 appears to be to give statutory effect to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Damache case, to which the Deputy Howlin referred earlier. It is important to note that this decision was delivered in early 2021.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was October 2022.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are three years on from the Damache case, in which the Supreme Court declared sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 to be unconstitutional. We sat on it for quite some time. The Supreme Court provided some form of instruction to this House in terms of what to do. The Supreme Court decision said and recognised that the decision as to whether naturalisation is granted or revoked - it is the same in respect of citizenship - is a matter for the Executive. It also said that the procedures that were in place to revoke naturalisation from a person who had been granted a certificate of naturalisation did not meet the standards of fair procedures that were required under the Irish legal system. In particular, the concern about sections 19(2) and 19(3) was that the committee of inquiry that was established was in effect set up by the Minister. At the end of the process, the Minister made the decision. It said that such an approach did not really give effect to the independent and impartial decision making that is required in a quasi-judicial process of determining whether a person's grant of naturalisation should be revoked. I am sympathetic to the argument that this is an important issue and should be dealt with in a Second Stage debate. On the other hand, there has been a considerable delay by the Oireachtas in bringing forward amendments that should be brought forward-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not by the Oireachtas.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is ultimately a matter for the Oireachtas to determine-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can only deal with-----

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been considerable delay in giving effect to the decision in the Damache case. The circumstances of Demache made quite a significant case. Another matter that needs to be emphasised is that it certainly must be the case that the Government - the Executive - must be entitled to decide whether revocation of naturalisation is permitted. I listened to the points that Deputy Howlin made and others echoed in respect of a two-tier system and the revocation of naturalisation. Certainly from looking at the Damache case, and there was a full challenge there, I do not believe the Supreme Court had huge concerns in respect of the ability to revoke naturalisation. There was no question over the entitlement of the Government to revoke naturalisation.

I also note what Deputy Howlin said about the proposed new subsection (1O), which provides that in certain circumstances, the Minister will not be required to give reasons or to set out her opinion as to why a revocation order should be made if she believes that "specifying the reasons for the decision would be contrary to the interests of national security". When it comes to granting naturalisation or considering issues in respect of the revocation of naturalisation, it must be the case that the Executive will have information in respect of individuals which is information that probably cannot be put into the public domain. On balance, most information, where possible, should be put out into the public domain. However, if there is information that has been identified and it convinces a Minister that there are national security reasons for revoking a certificate of naturalisation, that should be permitted to be done by a Minister. I suppose you have to place on trust what a Minister is doing and the reasons for doing it. Certainly a Minister could not do it unless there were legitimate reasons for doing so.

I note the concerns of Opposition Deputies. As I have said, it would have been preferable if there had been a full Second Stage debate on this matter. I came in here and listened to the debate about amendment No. 3. This is certainly an issue where legislation has to expedited, given that at present the process for revoking certificates of naturalisation simply does not operate because we have not put in place an independent and impartial committee of inquiry that can revoke naturalisation, as the Minister is entitled to do provided she goes through an independent and impartial process.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for all of their contributions across a variety of issues. At the outset, I have some issues to address. We discussed this last week in terms of the miscellaneous Bill. Throughout the year we have all collectively across the House worked on different Bills and pieces of legislation. Naturally, the way a miscellaneous Bill comes together is that, even with all of the legislation we are passing, certain changes are required that do not naturally fit into other legislation, or they happen at a time when they need to be implemented quickly. As I said before, this is the third miscellaneous Bill I have had in three or four years. They are not frequent but they tend to come at the end of the term when all of these individual requirements come together. I appreciate the timing of it is not always ideal but at the same time, so much of what is in this legislation is really important. Therefore, it is important that we get this passed before the summer recess. We have to respond to the Damache ruling or other court rulings that have taken place more recently. We have to make sure that those who voluntarily want to retire at 62 or 61, and do not have the benefit of time with them, can do so as quickly as possible. The other laws referenced here also need to be changed. We can debate this for as long as we want this evening. That time has been given. I appreciate that Deputies might not like the fact that different elements come together. However, my experience in this Department is that it is a matter of the way the timing has worked out. I appreciate colleagues' engagement on all of these matters.

In regard to the particular amendments that Deputy Howlin has placed down, I want to say very clearly that this is being done in response to a Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court said very clearly that the law we currently have, which has been in place since the 1950s, needs to be reformed and improved to make sure there are proper safeguards in place. I do not for a second trivialise what we are talking about here. When I said we are simply rectifying and reinstating a provision that already existed for the Minister, I do not for a second minimise the fact that revoking anybody's citizenship is a grave thing to do for that person and in general. However, I point to the fact that it has happened eight times since this law was put in place in the 1950s. It is something that is used very sparingly and only in the most serious of cases.

The amendments will ensure, to the last Deputy's point, that where a Minister makes a decision a committee can be then appointed. That committee can then make a recommendation but the Minister can set that aside. The court has clearly found that this does not allow for an independent process on what is an extremely important issue here. The measures that are being put in place through this and these amendments will ensure that if an appeal is made to that independent committee following on from a decision by the Minister, that ruling is binding. The Minister will have to take on board the recommendation by the committee - an independent committee - with regard to the information that is being provided or that the Minister can give to the particular individual whose citizenship is obviously in question here.

It is important that there is an ability, if there is a national security risk, for certain information to not be provided directly. What is important in this is that if the committee itself seeks the information from the Minister, it can look at that information and then decide itself if that information should be provided to the individual, so there is a second layer there. It is not just the Minister who decides, based on information that he or she has been given, that this is a security risk or a matter where information should not be provided to the individual. The committee itself can then seek that information if it has not been provided by the Minister, and then determine as well whether that should be made public or not. There are layers and safeguards put in place here to make sure that the ruling we have had with Damache is responded to effectively. It is really important, given that this ruling took place a number of years ago, that we move and make these changes. I am very conscious that these changes are actually making sure that the safeguards to which the Deputy is referring are put in place.

Speaking specifically to the amendments, I want to suggest and highlight that this addresses the Damache judgment, which struck out subsections (2) and (3) of the section; therefore, an amendment to subsection (1) is outside the scope of these amendments. Moreover, having carefully considered the Deputy's proposal, I do not think the amendment is necessary for the reasons I have outlined. The proposed legislation creates numerous new safeguards, opportunities to be heard and new powers for the committee of inquiry. It is clear to me that neither I nor any future Minister could revoke a certificate of naturalisation without a serious breach of one of the grounds mentioned or outlined. As the Deputy said himself, if someone were to obtain it fraudulently, while that may not be as clear-cut with regard to giving the reason or outlining if somebody had false documents proclaiming to be somebody else or other ways in which it was obtained fraudulently, that might be more clear-cut. It is really important that with regard to naturalisation, it has to be a serious breach on one of the grounds outlined. While there may be many cases where certain information needs to be withheld from the person subject to the revocation proposal on national security grounds, again it is clear this information would have to be provided, as I have mentioned, to the committee in order for it to perform its functions. It would then have the opportunity to consider whether this should be released as part of the information of the overall procedure.

With regard to amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 3, which proposes clarifications regarding national security, in a new subsection (10A), I wish to stress that it is already proposed to be the case that subsection (10) is applicable where the provision of information may be contrary to the interests of national security. Even though the Act itself may be overt, if information that contributes to identifying this or becoming aware of this cannot be provided because of grounds of national security, the reasons I have outlined in the early amendment stand. However, any decision to withhold information on national security grounds is, again, not taken lightly, and I can assure the Deputy that the facts will be fully considered by the Minister or the committee as the case may be.

Regarding those who may not have citizenship elsewhere or may have had it revoked elsewhere, I will stress that as a point of policy, this will be taken into account as well. A decision to revoke someone's citizenship, which would leave them stateless, is not a decision that would be taken by the Minister. Taking into account all of the other considerations, as a matter of policy, this is not a decision that would be taken or has been taken. I am very conscious of the obligations we have that Deputy Howlin has outlined.

Finally, with regard amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 3, the spirit of the text and the proposed insertion of subsection (1Q) already forms the basis for any proposal to revoke the certificate of naturalisation. The substance of this proposal is provided for throughout the checks and balances that are articulated in my proposed amendments to section 19(2) and section 19(3). I assure the Deputies again that the revocation of Irish citizenship is only undertaken in the most serious of circumstances.

With regard to the other issue, I know the amendment was not accepted, and I think we have a chance later to discuss it on amendment No. 30. I mentioned at the outset that there are individuals - be it working as prison officers in our prisons, An Garda Síochána, across the Defence Forces and others - who are coming to the stage where they will be forced to retire and they do not want to. They want to continue to work and to contribute in the job they are doing. They feel they have a lot more to give and that they can do that but, at the moment, they are prohibited from working beyond the age of 60. These changes will not force any individual in those organisations to work beyond 60. It would be voluntary. If we were to change the mandatory retirement age, that would have to be done with the support of these Houses and would have to be passed. I am stating very clearly that this is not forcing any individual to work past the age of 60. The reason that 62 was chosen acknowledges that these roles can be challenging. Whether it is working in the Prison Service or as a member of An Garda Síochána, it acknowledges that these are challenging roles. There is a lot of shift work and night work that takes it toll on individuals. People are living longer and healthier lives as well, and we want to take that into consideration.

The reference to the accelerated pension - I know this has come up quite a lot in conversations - does not remove that right. If persons voluntarily decide to work beyond the age of 60 to 62, they will not continue to have that accelerated pension but it does not preclude that from applying to the years before that. If individuals start working at the age of 20, they still have their 20 years plus the final ten accelerated. That does not change. This is to stress that all of this voluntary. Nobody is forced to retire at 60; nobody is forced to retire at 62, or before it. It is optional for the individuals involved here but the reason I am bringing forward these proposals is that I know there are people who want to work longer and have the ability to work longer but they cannot now because of the law, which precludes it.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the point; we agree with that. It is the way it is done in the future and the requirement for consultation, and the concerns there were in the consultation.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am absolutely happy-----

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will put on record that it is optional. To be clear on that: it is not mandatory, it is optional.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. I think with regard to any further changes, if it were to increase beyond that again, that would be through engagement with any of the associations referenced here but it would be always voluntary. It would be always optional. If we were to change the mandatory retirement age, that would have to be done with the Houses. If we were to change anything regarding the accelerated pension, that would have to be changed in this House as well. This is simply just to give those options to the many people I know who are hoping to stay on that little bit longer, and obviously hope to do so with the support of this House.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take on board what the Minister is saying-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to ask about procedure. I know it is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. We were dealing amendment No. 3. Are we dealing now with the amendment to amendment No. 3?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are dealing with-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have gone round the shop with the section as well.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Nash had an amendment in this section that was disallowed.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to amendment No. 3.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are dealing with amendments No. 1 and 3, obviously, and amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to amendment No. 3.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the actual issue that will be going first?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1 to the Minister's amendment No. 3.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are dealing with amendment No. 1 first-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Right.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and then amendment No. 3, and amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to amendment No. 3, and amendment No. 31.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wanted to ask a quick question of the Minister, if I can. The Damache judgment was in October 2020. We are now in July 2024. The Minister said that these Bills come up at a certain time and have to be dealt with. What actually happened between October 2020 and now, that it could not come up before this? I wonder what the situation is on that. It is obviously not rushed or urgent because it has been sitting for almost three years. What happened now that it had to come up at this time?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said, this is a hotchpotch of a Bill because it deals with everything from broadcasting, to the Department of public expenditure with regard to pensions, to revocation of citizenship under the 1956 Act. Some things are proper to an end-of-term miscellaneous provisions discussion, things that we all agree should be done, and there will not be any suitable vehicle coming through.

However, in truth, dealing with a Supreme Court decision - as Deputy Pringle has rightly said - that occurred in October 2020 by way of an amendment that was published a matter of days ago to a vehicle that has to be recommitted to Committee Stage, is really not a proper way of doing legislation.

In my time here, legislation was taken carefully. I disagree with some Deputies who have said there is always a rush at Christmas and in July. There are things but it is unusual for something new and fundamental to be introduced in legislation at this late stage. In this case, it is something that external bodies such as the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and others have strong views on, but they are not allowed to be heard. In normal circumstances, this should be a stand-alone proposal. Anybody who wanted to make submissions to us should have been heard in committee. There should have been pre-legislative scrutiny.

There is obviously no urgency about this because it has not been done for almost four years, so the notion that it has to be done tonight is fanciful, to be honest. I do not think anybody could disagree with that. The Department wanted to do something. I do not know whether there is a political imperative such that the Department felt it should do something about revoking people's citizenship and that it would make it look good in the context of a different political environment and a growing view of certain classes of citizens. I think that might explain it. I hope not but I am struggling to find a reason that something as fundamental as this would appear as an amendment at this late stage of a generalised round-up Bill, which does certain things that we normally all agree should be done in a miscellaneous provisions Bill. This is a general vehicle that enables such things to be done, but this measure does not fall into that category. That is why I disagree with Deputy O'Callaghan when he says there is now an imperative for us to do this because we must respond to the Supreme Court. We are very late in the day in getting a sense of responding urgently to the Supreme Court on this matter. I fear that we are not doing it well. I would have liked to have the time to think it through.

In essence, the proposal that the Minister is now suggesting to meet the constitutional requirement required of us by the Supreme Court is that she will make the initial decision, then she will establish an inquiry committee which will consist of a former judge and two other people who she deems appropriate, all of whom will be selected by her, and then they will make the determination. In other words, the Minister will select the review group to determine the merits or demerits of her decision. We would all like to be able to select our own review committees for our decisions. I am not sure that quite meets the requirements in this case. We do not have a chance to deal with that. The Minister's argument is that the review group's decision will be binding on her. The obviously unacceptable position whereby she makes a decision, appoints the review committee and can reject the review committee, meaning there is no point in having a review committee, was struck down by the Supreme Court. There is now a different process where the Minister makes the decision, appoints the review committee and then is bound by its decision. I would like more time to hear the merits and demerits of that. Can we put a better situation in place?

The other amendments are basically to safeguard the fundamental right to citizenship. The Minister might make reference in her next intervention to our obligations under the UN convention to prevent statelessness. The notion that we would create stateless people in the current world is a grave punishment. We need to think carefully about these matters. We should all be mindful when we make laws like this to give serious powers to the Executive, in this case the Minister for Justice, we are doing that on an enduring basis. We are looking at what is happening in our own European Union, where we are concerned about rule-of-law issues and about laws being enacted which are basically categorising citizens and raising to a different level this notion of fidelity to the state. They state that if you are not our kind of person, you are not really a citizen or loyal to the state.

We had a debate today about the European Council. The chair of the European Council is Hungary. A number of ministers from a variety of EU countries are not going to Council meetings in Hungary because of their deep concern about rule-of-law issues. I am not suggesting at all that this is the motivation of the Minister, Deputy McEntee, but there is a slight tinge of that about this proposal. It is as if she is giving herself powers and flying the flag now regarding anybody who comes to this country and is given the privilege of citizenship if they are not loyal to the state or if they have, to use the phrase, "failed in [their] duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State". That is a nebulous thing to define. It will not just be the Minister defining it but her successors. That causes us deep concern. I hope the Minister might reconsider. I join others in asking that this particular amendment, No. 3, be withdrawn and resubmitted as either a stand-alone measure in order that we can do pre-legislative scrutiny and so on in September when we come back, and thereby deal with it in a much more informed way that we can all be satisfied with, or failing that, that the Minister would at least accept the amendments I suggest, which I believe would strengthen the rights of individuals to know what they are being charged with. The Minister talks about national security. There is another point made by Deputy O'Callaghan. Under the provisions, only an overt act can be considered. An overt act is known, by definition. That is what "overt" means. How can the reasons for the Minister's decision not be public? There could not be secret reasons she is making a decision on an overt act. If it was a covert act, with spies or something, that would be a different kettle of fish, but that is not what the provisions are suggesting.

I ask that the Minister genuinely consider withdrawing amendment No. 3 and recommitting it in stand-alone legislation in September, or alternatively, at least accept the amendments I am suggesting to strengthen the rights of individuals. The notion that there have only been eight since the 1956 Act was passed is neither here nor there. There could be two dozen next year; we do not know. If you are one of the people whose citizenship has been revoked, it is a very serious measure indeed. It is probably more serious than a term of imprisonment and certainly more than a serious fine.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To suggest that there could potentially be 2,000 people next year-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not say 2,000. I said two dozen.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Two dozen. Apologies. This is not something that will be applied where I or any other Minister think that somebody is not our kind of person. The reasons a person would have his or her citizenship revoked are clear. The ruling obviously took issue with the safeguards which the court feels are not there at the moment, for the reasons outlined, that, irrespective of whether the committee was established by the Minister, the Minister can disregard the decision that was taken. That is what the ruling found against. The court did not take issue with the ability of the Minister to revoke certain certificates of citizenship, so in these amendments tonight, we are not creating a new two-tiered system. This is a law that has already existed since the 1950s, which I would say has been used sparingly. I cannot imagine that these changes will suddenly mean that we have a massive increase in these types of cases in future.

I do not want people to think this is us being tougher on issues concerning migration or citizenship. In fact, this was brought to Cabinet a number of weeks ago, in the same week there were citizenship ceremonies. It was portrayed by some as the ability for the Minister to revoke someone's citizenship because they committed a crime or he or she did not like them. All the while, that week I had the pleasure of providing citizenship to 10,000 people. This is in no way an attempt by me or anybody else to look as though we are hardening or taking a different approach to these matters. This is simply an important amendment to reflect the judgment and ruling. It was a number of years ago but there are any number of judgments, cases or amendments in my Department at any given time that could all be put into a miscellaneous Bill but obviously they take time and a lot of effort. Other work is under way. One has to choose, eventually draw a line and bring a Bill forward. If we can bring forward additional amendments, we do so. That is exactly what I did in this case. It is important to make these changes and that the Minister for Justice has this right to revoke citizenship in the most serious of cases. As I said, we are not talking about someone not being our kind of person. This is where someone poses a security risk to our State, where they obtained citizenship through fraudulent means. We are talking about a former judge of the Circuit Court, High Court, Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. I do not accept the idea that members of our superior courts would be in cahoots with or engage with the Minister, at the behest and request of the Minister, depending on the original decision. There is a clear separation of powers. We have a very well-respected Judiciary. Any individual from any of those courts I mentioned-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a Judiciary decision.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not, but somebody who sat on the Bench and served as a judge-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They would be in a minority of one in three.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Irrespective of that, the Deputy is talking about a group of people who will not make this decision lightly.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister does not know who her successor will appoint.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I stress that the Supreme Court did not take issue with the fact that the Minister has the ability and should have the right to revoke citizenship. It is about the manner in which it is done and making sure those extra layers and protections are in place. It is important that we push forward with this amendment and that this safeguard is put in place in response to the ruling. The manner in which it is being done will ensure those extra layers and safeguards are in place and, ultimately, that the Minister still has the decision to revoke citizenship if he or she believes a person obtained it through fraudulent means or if they pose a risk to the security of the State or any individuals in the State. We are not creating a new layer or another tier. We are simply putting in place a law that has existed since 1956. It has been used sparingly and, I have no doubt, if this Bill is successfully passed in the next two weeks, it will continue to be used in a sparing way.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the Minister's response to my query about why now, are we to take it that it is pure coincidence? It was not clear what the Minister said. Is it that this was basically prepared and ready, sitting in the Department for years, and the Minister just decided to put it into the Bill now because this is a miscellaneous provisions Bill and she wanted to throw something into it? Alternatively, has it just been prepared now and happened to come in now? If the latter is the case and it takes four years to consider a judgment and put it in place, there is something seriously wrong with the workload of the Minister's Department.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On workload, there are probably 100 pieces of legislation I could bring at any given time, such is the Department of Justice. Some are larger pieces of work, while others are amendments of this kind that come from different rulings. There is no rule as to how certain elements should be put into miscellaneous provisions Bills. Insofar as possible, it is prudent and important that Ministers bring forward Bills of this kind to make sure important changes required are not left behind. Sometimes it takes longer to bring these types of changes forward but that is the nature of a miscellaneous Bill. It has different elements; some are changes that have been required for longer, others are more recent. This is an important change. It should perhaps have been done sooner but it was not. It is now part of this Bill. It is important that we pass it.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 3, I am disappointed the Minister is not accepting even the amendments to the amendment, as opposed to the general view from this side of the House that she might delay. If this proposal had been fleshed out and ready to go, it would have been included in the published Bill from the start. It arrived after the Bill had been published and after the Second Stage debate. There was no proper pre-legislative scrutiny or opportunity to even have a Second Stage debate about it or external perspectives on it. That is not how these Houses should work collectively in terms of getting the best legislation, which is our ambition. The notion that one can simply parachute in an amendment on Committee Stage and say, "You can talk as long as you like but it is going to happen,” is disrespectful to the operations of the Oireachtas. It undermines people’s understanding of how a proper democracy and a proper Legislature work. It is not how many Legislatures work, where there is a collective understanding that the making of legislation is not the role of the Executive exclusively. It is a collaborative effort of all elected Members to the Houses. I intend to push the amendment.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 2 has been ruled out of order.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“PART 3

AMENDMENT OF IRISH NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956

Amendment of Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956

3. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 is amended⁠—

(a) by the insertion of the following section after section 4:

“Service of notices or documents

4A. (1) A notice or other document that is required or authorised by or under this Act (other than section 27) to be served on or given to a person shall be addressed to the person concerned by name, and may be so served on or given to the person in one of the following ways:

(a) by delivering it to the person;

(b) by leaving it at the address at which the person ordinarily resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, at that address;

(c) by sending it by post in a prepaid registered letter, or by any other form of recorded delivery service prescribed by the Minister, addressed to the person at the address at which he or she ordinarily resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, to that address;

(d) by sending it to the person by electronic means in accordance with subsection (2), in a case in which the person has given notice in writing to the Minister of his or her consent to it (or notices or other documents of a class to which it belongs) being served on or given to him or her in that manner.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d), a notice or other document is sent to a person by electronic means in accordance with this subsection⁠—

(a) if it is sent to an email address that the person has furnished to the Minister for that purpose, or

(b) in a case in which the person is registered on an electronic interface, by leaving it on that electronic interface.

(3) Where a notice or other document referred to in subsection (1) has been sent to a person in accordance with⁠—

(a) paragraph (c) of subsection (1), the notice or other document shall be deemed to have been duly served on or given to the person on the third working day after the day on which it was so sent, and

(b) paragraph (d) of subsection (1), the notice or other document shall be deemed to have been duly served on or given to the person when the sender’s facility for the delivery of notices or other documents by electronic means generates a message or other record confirming the delivery of the notice or other document by the electronic means used.

(4) In this section, ‘electronic interface’ means a secure information technology platform, portal, exchange, network or other similar interface maintained by, or on behalf of, the Minister which requires personal log-in details.”,

and

(b) in section 19, by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (1):

"(1A) Where the Minister is satisfied that one or more of the grounds specified in subsection (1) exists, the Minister shall, prior to revoking a certificate of naturalisation under this section, give the person to whom the certificate of naturalisation was granted such notice as may be prescribed of the Minister’s intention to revoke the certificate of naturalisation (in this section referred to as a ‘notice of intention to revoke’).

(1B) A notice of intention to revoke shall⁠—

(a) inform the person of⁠—

(i) the Minister’s intention to revoke the certificate of naturalisation, and

(ii) subject to subsection (1O), the reasons for the opinion of the Minister referred to in subsection (1A),

and

(b) include a statement of the effect of subsection (1D).

(1C) A person to whom a notice of intention to revoke is given may, within the period of 28 days beginning on the date the notice of intention to revoke is given to the person, make representations in writing to the Minister regarding the intended revocation.

(1D) After the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (1C), the Minister shall⁠—

(a) decide whether to revoke the certificate and in making that decision shall have regard to the representations, if any, made by the person under that subsection, and

(b) give the person concerned a notification in writing of his or her decision.

(1E) Where the Minister decides under subsection (1D) to revoke the certificate of naturalisation, the notification under paragraph (b) of that subsection shall⁠—

(a) include a statement informing the person of⁠—

(i) the Minister’s decision to revoke the certificate,

(ii) subject to subsection (1O), the reasons for the decision, and

(iii) the right of the person under subsection (1F) to request that an inquiry be held into the decision,

and

(b) include a statement of the effect of subsection (1J).

(1F) A person who is the subject of a notification to which subsection (1E) applies may, in the prescribed manner and within the period of 14 days beginning on the date on which the notice is given to the person, request that an inquiry be held into the Minister’s decision to revoke his or her certificate of naturalisation.

(1G) The Minister, on receipt of a request made in accordance with subsection (1F), shall appoint a Committee of Inquiry to hold an inquiry into the decision to revoke the certificate of naturalisation concerned.

(1H) A Committee of Inquiry appointed under subsection (1G) shall consist of the following members:

(a) a chairperson, who shall be a retired Judge of the Circuit Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court;

(b) 2 ordinary members, being persons with such experience and qualifications as the Minister considers appropriate having regard to the functions of the Committee of Inquiry.

(1I) A Committee of Inquiry shall be independent in the performance of its functions.

(1J) Where a person does not, within the period specified in subsection (1F), request that an inquiry be held into the Minister’s decision to revoke the certificate of naturalisation, the revocation of the certificate of naturalisation shall take effect 14 days after the date the notice is given to the person.

(1K) A Committee of Inquiry shall consider the Minister’s decision to revoke the certificate of naturalisation, and may in accordance with subsection (1L) decide to⁠—

(a) affirm the decision, or

(b) set aside the decision.

(1L) In arriving at its decision under subsection (1K), a Committee of Inquiry shall have regard to⁠—

(a) the reasons for which the Minister made the decision to revoke the certificate of naturalisation,

(b) any representations made by the person to the Minister under subsection (1C),

(c) any submissions made or information provided (where applicable, in accordance with regulations under subsection (1P)) to the Committee by the Minister or person concerned,

(d) where an oral hearing is held, the evidence adduced and any submissions made by the Minister or the person concerned at the hearing, and

(e) any other circumstances or matters that the Committee considers relevant.

(1M) Where a Committee of Inquiry decides under paragraph (a) of subsection (1K) to affirm the decision of the Minister to revoke the certificate of naturalisation⁠—

(a) the Committee of Inquiry shall⁠—

(i) give the person a notification in writing which shall include a statement informing the person of⁠—

(I) its decision,

(II) subject to subsection (1O), the reasons for the decision, and

(III) the effect of paragraph (b), and

(ii) inform the Minister of its decision and of the reasons for its decision,

and

(b) the revocation shall take effect 3 days after the date on which the notification under paragraph (a)(i) is given to the person.

(1N) Where a Committee of Inquiry decides under paragraph (b) of subsection (1K) to set aside the decision of the Minister to revoke the certificate of naturalisation, the Committee of Inquiry shall⁠—

(a) give the person a notification in writing of its decision, and

(b) inform the Minister of its decision.

(1O) Subsections (1B)(a)(ii), (1E)(a)(ii) and (1M)(a)(i)(II) shall not apply where the Minister or the Committee of Inquiry, as the case may be, considers that specifying the reasons for the decision would be contrary to the interests of national security.

(1P) The Minister may, in consultation with the chairperson of the Committee of Inquiry and having regard to the need to observe fair procedures, prescribe procedures for and in relation to an inquiry under this section, including the circumstances in which oral hearings may be held.”.”.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 3:

After section 3(a), to insert the following: “(b) in section 19 (1) (b), by the deletion of “, by any overt act,” and the substitution of “, by any overt and specified act,”,”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 3 has been ruled out of order.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 3:

After subsection (1O) proposed to be inserted by section 3(b), to insert the following:

“(1OA) In a case to which subsection (1)(b) applies, nothing in subsection (1O) relieves the Minister or the Committee of Inquiry, as the case may be, of the obligation to specify the overt act referred to in that paragraph.”.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 3:

After subsection (1P) proposed to be inserted by section 3(b), to insert the following:

“(1Q) In a case to which subsection (1) (b) applies, the Minister shall not decide to revoke a certificate of naturalisation, and the Committee of Inquiry shall not affirm such a decision unless the Minister or the Committee of Inquiry, as the case may be, is satisfied that the overt act concerned is so serious in nature that it shows that the obligations of citizenship have intentionally been abandoned.”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 4 to 12, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

"PART 4

AMENDMENT OF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION ACT 2015

Definition (Part 4)

4. In this Part, “Act of 2015” means the International Protection Act 2015.".

Amendment No. 4 is a standard provision that provides that the Act of 2015 means the International Protection Act 2015 in this section.

I propose to discuss amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 12 together as they follow logically. They all address issues identified by the High Court on the inadmissibility procedure and related provisions. To provide context, under section 21 of the International Protection Act 2015 an application for international protection can be deemed inadmissible, meaning a person will not be entitled to apply for international protection, where one or more of the reasons listed applies. These reasons are that another EU member state has granted the person refugee status or subsidiary protection, a country other than an EU member state has recognised the person as a refugee and the person can avail of this protection or otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, or the person arrived in the State from a third country that is a safe third country for that person. A safe third country for the person is one where the person has sufficient connection with that country, the person will not be subject to the death penalty or other significant abuse of rights in that country, and the person will be readmitted to the country.

Safe third countries must be designated by the Minister for Justice under section 72A of the Act. In order to designate a country as safe third country certain conditions must be met. In March 2024 the High Court found that a number of provisions relating to this procedure were lacking safeguards. The amendments tabled today address these issues. Under amendment No. 5 the International Protection Act 2015 Safe Third Countries Order 2020 is revoked as this order was deemed unlawful by the High Court.

Amendment No. 7 amends section 21 of the Act of 2015 to ensure an individual assessment is made as part of the inadmissibility procedure to verify the possibility to request refugee status exists for the individual concerned in the country to which they may be returned and, if they are found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention. It also expands the definition of serious harm to ensure there are greater safeguards.

Amendment No. 8 deals with section 50A of the Act. It ensures a return order is not issued on foot of an inadmissibility decision where that order would be in breach of a person's fundamental rights. One of the key concerns of the High Court was that there is no mechanism by which the Minister could refrain from issuing a return order in this procedure where fundamental rights are breached. I am rectifying this with the amendment.

Amendment No. 12 pertains to section 72A of the Act. It broadens the definition of serious harm as is also proposed under amendment No. 7 in respect of section 21 of the Act. This ensures that wider consideration is given to what may constitute a risk of serious harm when the Minister is considering the designation of a safe third country under section 72A. This improved procedure introduces the necessary safeguards to the inadmissibility procedure and will enable the International Protection Office to resume the examination of cases under the inadmissibility procedure as soon as possible. This is absolutely crucial to ensure we maintain the integrity of the international protection system and provide for returns where an application is deemed inadmissible.

Amendment No. 6 is an amendment to section 5 of the Act. It is technical in nature and rectifies an error made in the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act on the service of notice under this Act.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are twin amendments to section 51 and section 51A of the International Protection Act 2015. These sections of the Act provide that the Minister shall make a deportation order or return order as the case may be regarding a person who has failed in their international protection claim. In the overwhelming majority of cases these provisions work very well. However, on occasion people obtain other immigration status independent of their international protection claims. For example, they may marry an Irish or EU citizen, they may have EU treaty rights or they may be part of the undocumented scheme. There are different strands happening at the same time. Under existing legislation we are obliged to issue these people a deportation order or a return order despite this being counterintuitive and unenforceable. It is not considered legally or administratively appropriate to make a deportation order to satisfy the sanctions where there is no intention to have the order effected and where there is an acceptance the order made will have to be revoked soon after. Therefore, these amendments will allow the Minister to prescribe certain types of immigration permissions which, when held by a person, would disapply the mandatory nature of these sections. I have consistently committed to making our international protection system more efficient. These amendments will save time in the process and allow the officials to concentrate on cases where deportation orders can and should be enforced.

Amendment No. 11 proposes a change to the criteria for ordinary membership of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, IPAT. At present, ordinary members of IPAT are required to have five years' experience as practising barristers or practising solicitors. The new proposed criteria would mean that ordinary members of IPAT would be required to have two years' experience practising as a barrister or a solicitor in this jurisdiction. Additionally, legal academics with two years' experience who are also qualified barristers or solicitors will be eligible for appointment. A further proposed change to section 62 of the 2015 Act is to allow for time spent practising as a solicitor or barrister or local equivalent title outside the State to qualify towards ordinary membership of the tribunal. Again, this will allow people with relevant expertise in other jurisdictions to be appointed as ordinary members. I propose these changes because, as we can all see, the volume of cases brought through the tribunal has been increasing significantly as the overall number of decisions by the International Protection Office on applications has increased. These amendments will enable a wider pool of candidates to apply, while ensuring the criteria for their appointment maintains the high standard of experience necessary for the performance of their duties. All would-be members would still have to be in possession of significant legal training and appropriate expertise or qualifications. Moreover, the proposed new membership criteria are similar to that of many other tribunals operating in the State.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the improvement in safeguards to comply with the judgments of the court. What are the criteria and what is the process in determining what is a safe country? Is it possible for the process itself to become more transparent? Does the Minister see a role for the Oireachtas in discussing such matters with her, rather than simply the Department and the Minister making a determination on what constitutes a safe third country?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have the specific criteria for it with me. There is a very clear process which I can make available to Deputy Howlin. A number of organisations, international and otherwise, need to be consulted. Various elements need to be taken into consideration also. I can make the information available to Deputy Howlin.

It is somewhat separate to this, but at the same time, it is all interconnected.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important for us to know, if there will be a fast-track process for certain nationalities, how people get on that list, what countries are on the list and how it is done. I am unclear about it. Does the Minister see a role for the Oireachtas, by way of the Committee on Justice or some other way, discussing the countries with her before she expands the list? Does she intend to add to the current list?

Is the reduction in the criteria for years of service for practising solicitors to serve in the tribunal because there is a difficulty in getting people who are qualified with five years' experience? Is that the reason for it? Is she content that two years of practising experience is adequate for people to make these important decisions?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 4 to 12, inclusive, seek to amend the International Protection Act 2015 on foot of a decision I referred to earlier, which was a decision by the High Court in March of this year, A and B applicants v. the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, IPAT, and the Minister for Justice. I have a suspicion that this legislation will end up before the courts again so it is important that we give it careful consideration. I have a number of queries. I am not asking the Minister to answer them immediately, but I ask her to take them into consideration.

Has a decision been made by the Minister on whether she will appeal the decision made in March of this year? It would not necessarily be incompatible to appeal the decision, while at the same time bringing forward amending legislation in case the appeal does not succeed. A number of rulings were given by the court in respect of a duty of candour it was alleged one of the applicants had not complied with. Will the State appeal on that ground? It may be difficult for the Minister to give that information but if she has it, I would appreciate knowing it.

The purpose of the Bill is to deal with what are referred to as "safe third countries". Under section 72, the Minister has an entitlement to designate countries as safe countries of origin. They are countries where people are not expected to meet persecution or discrimination or be subjected to violence in respect of the expression of their political opinions or rights. Many countries in the world are safe countries of origin. In fairness to the Minister, on foot of urging by many people, the Minister has added seven countries to that list in the past year. She started earlier this year with Botswana and Algeria and she added five more last week. Specific rules are set out in section 72 for how a country should be designated as a safe country of origin. It is a process the Minister needs to be careful of as it will be challenged and she needs to have evidence to satisfy herself that these countries are safe countries of origin, pursuant to the provision set out in section 72 of the Act.

Section 72A of the Act was introduced more recently as an amendment and it provided for the designation of countries as safe third countries. It is my understanding that the only country that was ever designated by the Minister as a safe third country was the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were included, but it was the UK that was designated as a safe third country. The whole purpose of a safe third country is that if people who are seeking international protection have come from one, Ireland is entitled to say that the application is inadmissible and they can be subject to a return order as provided for in the Act. It is important that we get the legislation right. The UK was designated as a safe third country but the effect of the decision in March was that it can no longer be considered a safe third country, which is surprising when we consider that the UK is a country not dissimilar to ours where, in general, human rights are very well protected. Part of the reason for the concern in respect of the usefulness and applicability of the UK as being a safe third country was the Rwanda policy. That seems to have been ditched by the new British Government so I assume that once this legislation is enacted, the Minister will once again designate the UK as a safe third country. The benefit of that will be that we will we then be able to view applications made by people coming from the UK as inadmissible under section 21 of the Act. There will also be the possibility for the Minister to give effect to deportation orders under section 51 of the Act and to return orders under section 51(a) of the Act.

The main criticism by the High Court in its decision in March was that the legislation giving effect to safe third countries, section 72A, did not transpose fully into Irish law the conditions precedent of the recast procedures directive. I hope I am not putting everyone to sleep by talking about this, but it is quite a technical issue. In effect, Ms Justice Phelan who gave the judgment, stated in paragraph 163:

In particular, s. 72A(2) of the 2015 Act (as amended) does not specifically preclude designation as a safe country on the basis of risk of the death penalty or execution or serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict.

My understanding is that in the proposed amendments we are discussing, for instance the amendment to section 21, the Minister is giving effect to that paragraph in the High Court decision, by stating that section 21(17) will now include the words "punishment or a serious and individual threat to his or her life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict”. The Minister is also doing so in respect of the prohibition of refoulement set out in section 50A. She is also amending section 51 which provides for the deportation order and section 51A to give effect to the objective and decision of the High Court in A and B applicants v. the International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice.

I noted that the Minister is revoking the statutory instrument designating the UK as a safe third country, although I questioned whether that is necessary in light of what the High Court said. I assume that once this legislation has been enacted, having conducted her appraisal of the legislative requirements of the new section 72A, the Minister will proceed to designate the UK as a safe third country.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two separate things with regard to the safe countries, but I can provide the ways in which they are applied. We now have 15 countries deemed to be safe countries of origin. I hope this legislation will be enacted and the requirements of the High Court ruling met. Then we will need to revisit the question of the UK. However, we do not want to rush into it without engaging with our new counterparts across the water in the UK. It is important that we can return people to a country where we know it is safe for them and where they already have a connection or status. At the same time, it is important to ensure safeguards are in place to make sure they are safe when they return, their rights are upheld and they have the right to apply for international protection. These amendments will do that and rectify the situation.

With respect to the IPAT members and the changes being made - this is specific to people who are not practising - there are people who have years of experience working in this space but do not have experience of practising for that length of time. They cannot apply their knowledge, skills or expertise. There will be a rigorous system for people applying and a rigorous recruitment process to make sure that anyone who comes through has the relevant expertise or knowledge. However, it opens it up and ensures more people can apply for these roles. It has been more challenging to increase the staff in IPAT at the same rate as I have been able to double the staff in the International Protection Office. This will not in any way remove the need for qualifications, criteria and expertise in this area, but it opens it up to a number of people who may have expertise, but do not meet the practising criteria in place at the moment. The level of experience is also in line with many of the other tribunals we have and it works well in those areas.

If an issue emerges, we can look at and address it but I am satisfied these criteria are strong enough that we have good, qualified people who want to work in the area and will assist us with what is quite a challenging and difficult workload at present.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I mentioned earlier my slight concerns over the experience given to people going to sit on the tribunal of two years post qualification for solicitors and barristers. It may cause trouble. It is a short time to prepare someone to adjudicate on serious issues. I understand the need to have more people in there working but am not sure lowering it to two years is the way to go.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“Revocation

5. The International Protection Act 2015 (Safe Third Country) Order 2020 (S.I. No. 725 of 2020) is revoked.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 5 of Act of 2015

6. Section 5(2) of the Act of 2015 is amended by the substitution of “subsection (1)(d), a notice or other document” for “subsection (1)(c), a notice”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 21 of Act of 2015

7. Section 21 of the Act of 2015 is amended— (a) in subsection (16), by the substitution of “subsection (2)(a)” for “this section”,

(b) in subsection (17)—

(i) in paragraph (b), by the substitution of “punishment or a serious and individual threat to his or her life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict,” for “punishment, and”,

(ii) in paragraph (c), by the substitution of “concerned, and” for “concerned.”,

and

(iii) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (c):

“(d) has the possibility in the country concerned to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention.”,

and

(c) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (18):

“(19) In subsection (17)(d), ‘refugee status’ means the recognition by the country concerned of a third country national or stateless person as a refugee.”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 50A of Act of 2015

8. Section 50A of the Act of 2015 is amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1): “(1) A person shall not be expelled or returned in any manner whatsoever to the frontier of a territory—

(a) where, in the opinion of the Minister—

(i) the life or freedom of the person would be threatened for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or

(ii) there is a risk that the person would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or a serious and individual threat to his or her life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict,

or

(b) where the Minister is of the opinion that such expulsion or return would be prohibited under any enactment or rule of law as a breach of the person’s fundamental rights.”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 51 of Act of 2015

9. Section 51 of the Act of 2015 is amended— (a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “section 50 and subsection (1A),” for “section 50,” and

(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):

“(1A) (a) Subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of a person who is a member of a class of person that is prescribed under paragraph (b).

(b) The Minister may, for the purposes of this subsection, prescribe a class or classes of persons, being persons to whom such permission as may be specified has been given.

(c) The matters to which the Minister may have regard in specifying a permission under paragraph (b) include—

(i) the nature and purposes of the permission,

(ii) the period for which a person to whom the permission is granted may remain in the State, and

(iii) the conditions attached to the permission.

(d) In this subsection, a reference to a permission to remain in the State is a reference to a permission to remain in the State that has been given in accordance with the law of the State and is valid.”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 51A of Act of 2015

10. Section 51A of the Act of 2015 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “section 50A and subsection (1A),” for “section 50A,” and

(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):

“(1A) (a) Subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of a person who is a member of a class of person that is prescribed under paragraph (b).

(b) The Minister may, for the purposes of this subsection, prescribe a class or classes of persons, being persons to whom such permission as may be specified has been given.

(c) The matters to which the Minister may have regard in specifying a permission under paragraph (b) include—

(i) the nature and purposes of the permission,

(ii) the period for which a person to whom the permission is granted may remain in the State, and

(iii) the conditions attached to the permission.

(d) In this subsection, a reference to a permission to remain in the State is a reference to a permission to remain in the State that has been given in accordance with the law of the State and is valid.”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 62 of Act of 2015

11. Section 62 of the Act of 2015 is amended—

(a) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2):

“(2) The experience referred to in subsection (1) is—

(a) in the case of a member referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, not less than 5 years’ experience as a practising solicitor, practising barrister or member referred to in paragraph (c) of that subsection, and

(b) in the case of a member referred to in paragraph (c) of that subsection, not less than 2 years’ experience—

(i) as a practising solicitor or practising barrister,

(ii) pursuing his or her professional activities as a lawyer in a member state under the relevant home professional title,

(iii) practising, in a jurisdiction other than a member state and in accordance with the law of that jurisdiction, in a profession that corresponds substantially to the profession of solicitor or barrister, or

(iv) as a legal academic, where the person is, at the time of his or her appointment, a solicitor or qualified barrister.”,

and

(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (15):

“(16) In subsection (2)—

‘home professional title’, ‘lawyer’, ‘member state’ and ‘professional activities’ have the same meanings as they have in the European Communities (Lawyers’ Establishment) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 732 of 2003);

‘legal academic’ shall be construed in accordance with section 45A(2) (inserted by section 63 of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2023) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961;

‘practising solicitor’, ‘practising barrister’ and ‘qualified barrister’ have the same meanings as they have in the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015;

‘solicitor’ means a person who has been admitted as a solicitor whose name is on the roll of solicitors (within the meaning of section 9 of the Solicitors Act 1954).”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 72A of Act of 2015

12. Section 72A(2) of the Act of 2015 is amended by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (a):

“(aa) there is no risk that a person would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or a serious and individual threat to his or her life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict,”.”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 13 and 20 are related and may be discussed together.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 7, line 24, to delete “subsections (2A) and (2B)” and substitute “subsections (2A) to (2D)”

It is a procedural part of our bundle of amendments to section 4, which sets out amendments to the Judicial Council Act 2019. Last April's Supreme Court decision in the Delaney case upheld, as discussed on Second Stage, the validity of personal injuries guidelines issued by the Judicial Council, but only because the guidelines had been endorsed by subsequent legislation passed by the Oireachtas. Had that endorsement had not come about, the guidelines would have been found invalid on the grounds that a body such as the Judicial Council is not authorised under the Constitution to make law, yet it purported to do so. The guidelines are now part of the law insofar as our courts are concerned. They are bound to have regard to them and can only depart from them for stated reasons.

The Bill will deal with amendments to the personal injuries guidelines, which I understand are pending. It provides any amended version of the guidelines adopted by the Judicial Council must be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not know if this means future personal injuries guidelines can be safely made.

I have had the opportunity to reflect further on Part 4 and seek legal advice on it. I have serious concerns. In the Supreme Court decision in Delaney v. PIAB delivered on 9 April last, there were five judgments from a seven-member court and those judgments are both lengthy and complex. The case involved the constitutional validity of the personal injuries guidelines passed by the Judicial Council comprising all judges. That took place in March 2021. First, a majority of the court concluded the guidelines were legally binding and were law. Second, a differently composed majority, some of whom did not agree the guidelines were law, decided that if they were law, the power given to the Judicial Council to make them was unconstitutional. Third, a different majority concluded if the relevant provisions were unconstitutional, which some denied, then the guidelines had been confirmed and validated by virtue of the provisions of subsequent legislation.

On reading these judgments, we have two major concerns about the proposed approach, which I seek the Minister's view on. First, the Bill is posited on the assumption all that is needed for future amendments is that they be submitted to both Houses of the Oireachtas and approved by resolution. Then they would come into force. I do not see that there is much support for this approach in the judgments I have looked at. There was brief discussion in some of the judgments as to whether and to what extent the Oireachtas should be given a supervisory role in the making of secondary legislation outside of this body and as to what the constitutional impact would be. I am told there are cases in which the Supreme Court noted with approval that making delegated legislation subject to either prior approval or annulment of the Houses would mean the Houses had maintained a measure of control and that was seen as a safeguard. In this case, Mr. Justice Collins, in particular, was clear that the presence or absence of any such supervisory mechanism, while undoubtedly relevant, would not be a determinative factor, in his judgment. None of the cases suggest the otherwise permissible delegation of rule-making authority by the Oireachtas might be invalidated by the absence of such a mechanism. We are faced with the question of whether what has already been found to be an impermissible delegation of rule-making authority constitutionally provided to the Oireachtas will be validated in future simply by the addition of a supervisory mechanism that will require the prior approval of a resolution of these Houses. I ask this because most of the judges who referred to the issue remarked that, while the guidelines continue to have effect, as a result of the affirmation by the Oireachtas in later legislation, any future or further changes in the guidelines would require further legislative intervention by the Oireachtas. The notion of authorising future amendments by way of resolutions of the House does not seem to have been explicitly endorsed in any of the judgments I have looked at. That is an important point that I wonder if the Minister and her Department have considered.

The second point I make seems to me a more serious issue. The granting of a law-making power to the Judicial Council was struck down by the majority of the Supreme Court, not simply because it was an impermissible delegation of powers belonging exclusively to the Oireachtas but because it was constitutionally inappropriate ever to convey such law-making powers on the Judiciary. Those are two important points. First, we could not delegate powers to another body in any event to make law and, second, it would be particularly unconstitutional to delegate it to the Judiciary. A majority of the seven judges agreed that the relevant section was unconstitutional on the additional ground that it was contrary to the independence of the Judiciary, who stand alone in the Constitution. This seems to be a separate and distinct ground for objecting to the making of the guidelines by the judges. If amendments to the guidelines are proposed by the Judicial Council in future, but which must be approved by the Houses before they can have effect, then this control mechanism might be accepted as an adequate safeguard to prevent the amendment being challenged on the grounds of excessive delegation of law-making power vested in the Oireachtas.

On the other hand, if the objection is that the judges themselves, or the Judiciary itself, is an inappropriate body to ever have the power to make law and that judges should never have conferred on them the function of acting collectively to make law because that would be an unconstitutional breach of the guaranteed independence of the Judiciary, then I do not see how even subsequent endorsement by Dáil and Seanad resolutions would rescue those particular amendments from being unconstitutional. Even if resolutions of the Houses are accepted as control mechanisms that safeguard against excessive law-making by bodies to which powers are delegated, I do not see how such mechanisms could rescue law-making by a body to which that power should not and could not constitutionally been given in the first place, that is, to members of the Judiciary. I hope the Minister can say something about her thinking on these matters and whether they have been considered, as well as how Part 4 will operate on a satisfactory basis and be constitutionally robust in order to address the problems I have just raised.

One way or another, this Bill is concerned with the Judicial Council's personal injuries guidelines only. This is a matter that we discussed on Second Stage. It says nothing about the sentencing guidelines, the other major reform to be undertaken by the Judicial Council. A separate committee has been established. As the Minister and the House are aware, the Judicial Council has two committees, one to produce guidelines on personal injuries, which I have just talked about, and the other to produce guidelines on sentencing. The Judicial Council was given a statutory deadline to produce personal injuries guidelines. That deadline was met, the guidelines were published and then they were challenged on constitutional grounds. The work of the sentencing committee, as I said on Second Stage, is harder because of the dearth of information on sentencing policy. It needs to collate information on sentencing which, in and of itself, is a very complex undertaking. Those particular guidelines are still awaited and I suggested on Second Stage that assistance be given, either by way of additional staff or through the Courts Service, to the Judicial Council's committee to do that work.

If the criminal courts will be obliged to have regard to the sentencing guidelines in the future, as section 92 of the Act provides, then according to the Minister's own argument, those guidelines would have to be first approved by the two Houses of the Oireachtas, just as the personal injuries guidelines would have to be. Otherwise, the Judicial Council will stand accused again of making law without the approval of the Oireachtas.

Our amendment to this section would give the same underpinning to the sentencing guidelines as the Minister proposes to give to the personal injuries guidelines. I think the Minister is well disposed to that approach, although I obviously await her determination. In that regard, amendment No. 13 deletes a reference to subsections "(2A) and (2B)" to be inserted into section 7 of the Judicial Council Act and replaces it with a reference to subsections "(2A) to (2D)". We propose in amendment No. 20, which is being taken with amendment No. 13, to insert two new subsections (2C) and (2D), in addition to the Minister's inserts. Our two subsections would provide that sentencing guidelines may be adopted by the Judicial Council only where a draft of the guidelines has first been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House. For this purpose, the council must submit a draft of its guidelines to the Minister and the Minister must lay the draft before the Houses. This is exactly the same procedure as the Minister is proposing to be adopted in relation to the personal injuries guidelines.

In the same amendment we are also proposing an important change to section 91 of the Judicial Council Act. Under our proposed new section (2A), the first draft sentencing guidelines prepared for submission to the body by the sentencing guidelines and information committee shall include guidelines about the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for a court to impose a suspended or deferred custodial sentence on an offender in the proceedings before it and the circumstances in which the imposition of a suspended or deferred custodial sentence is not appropriate. Obviously that particular issue has gained more urgency in recent times, as the issue of suspended sentences has come to be debated in the public domain.

I am sorry to be raising a number of very fundamental issues. I hope the Minister will be able to deal with them.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In response to the Deputy's initial question, the Attorney General has carefully considered the information available and the various judgments. I know they are complex and sometimes conflicting but two things are clear, namely, that the approval of the Oireachtas is needed and that the guidelines are valid. After carefully considering the Supreme Court judgment, the advice from the Attorney General is that the approach that has been set out will suffice. The Attorney General has also taken into consideration, when making that decision, the issue of judicial independence but has come to the conclusion that the approach set out in section 4 is the appropriate one to take.

Amendment No. 13 and the two parts to amendment No. 20 relate to the sentencing guidelines. In response to remarks made by the Deputy last week, whatever assistance needed by the council is being, and will be, provided but to the Deputy's point, obviously a huge amount of work has been done already, particularly in the area of domestic violence in the home. Progress has been made on that only this week. The other area the council is currently looking at is that of fatal road traffic accidents.

Amendment No. 20 seeks to introduce revised procedures for adoption of sentencing guidelines by the council similar to those introduced by section 4 of the Bill, mirroring the provisions set out in the new subsections (2C) and (2E) proposed for insertion. Amendment No. 13 provides for a consequential renumbering of the subsections. As Deputy Howlin has set out, this is presumably designed to reflect the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in the Delaney appeal decision of last April. Obviously, that specifically applies to the personal injuries guidelines but the amendments provide that it would apply to the sentencing guidelines as well. As I said a few moments ago, this is not something to which we are opposed but we are seeking to determine if it would apply in the same way or would necessarily be required in the same way because it applies to different guidelines. They seem somewhat similar but, at the same time, they are different. It is important for us to get that legal advice back in order to make sure that if we were to progress with something like this, it would be both necessary and appropriate. We want to make sure that we do not introduce a pre-emptive arrangement that may not be necessary. I am not saying it would have any adverse impacts but it may not be required. I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 13 and 20. They relate to revised procedures for sentencing guidelines when we are talking about something different from what such procedures have been applied to so far.

On the second part of amendment No. 20, work is being done by the sentencing guidelines committee. To impose a particular area or part of sentencing that it would be required to look at may knock off track the work that is already being done. The two areas that I mentioned specifically were domestic violence in the home and fatal road collisions. What we do not want to do is specifically refer to any particular area the council should look at but, rather, we want to allow it to identify issues itself. If the committee is looking at guidelines in general and sentencing guidelines in particular, this forms a natural part of that. Suspended sentences are included in the overall review and the work the Judicial Council is doing, so it is not necessary to single that out. It will be part of the overall work that the council is doing. The focus at the moment is very much on the two areas I have mentioned. To try to single out or pull out something separate from that, which is part of the overall piece of work, would be counterproductive at this stage.

In terms of the initial amendment, I am not opposed to it in principle but I want to have absolute clarity that it is necessary and would apply in the same way as it does for the personal injuries guidelines. On the second amendment, No. 20, as I have said, this is very much part of the overall review that is taking place around guidelines and how they are applied, not applied or suspended in certain circumstances. That is why I do not propose to accept that amendment either.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her reply. I ask that she come back again on the point I made about the expression by members of the Supreme Court about the essence of the Judiciary being an inappropriate body constitutionally to have devolved powers to make law. Has that been reflected on or checked? What assurances can the Minister give the House on that not being a factor that, if that issue itself were tested, would undermine the functioning of the Judicial Council by way of making secondary legislation?

Second, as regards the sentencing guidelines and the sentencing committee specifically, because we are looking at sentencing, the Minister assures me and the House that the committee looks at suspended sentences as part of that. I do not think it detracts from this to simply be specific about the circumstances of a suspension of a sentence. Does the Minister have specific guidelines on that? Is she telling us that is already what is happening? I do not see how being explicit about it in any way detracts from looking at sentencing policy generally. The wording is "and" the occasions when a sentence is suspended and in what circumstances a suspended sentence is appropriate. If the Minister assures me that is fully embraced in any event, I will be satisfied on that matter.

As regards the timelines, I am conscious of the position of this Dáil and how long we have. I would not like to see sentencing guidelines be available and our having a hiatus of a number of months before they could be actually promulgated for use in the courts for want of legislative provision. What is the Minister's thinking on that?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like all of us here, I am not sure about timelines as to when we will have an election, but this work, I hope, will come to a certain point by the end of this year. Either way, whether there is something before or after, we are probably okay time-wise to make sure we have a government to be able to make changes if that is what is required to uphold any of the recommendations.

My understanding in terms of the suspended sentences is that, as regards the sentences overall, they are part of what is being looked at within that scope. Taking it out as something separate, which will apply to everything when the focus at the moment is on two particular areas, which will still include suspended sentences as part of that overall review, might detract from or deter what they are working on at the moment. As they expand, however, and obviously there are other areas they will look at beyond the two I have mentioned, that will also include, from start to finish, the suspended sentence element of it or potential application of a suspended sentence. I am advised by the Attorney General - and, again, having looked at all elements of the judgment and the fact that there were different views and opinions on it - that this is the right approach to take, ensuring there is that resolution passed by both Houses. That is the approach we are taking here, based on that advice. I have been reassured that is the appropriate approach to take. It takes into consideration all the statements that have been made and all the judgments as part of the Delaney case.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How stands amendment No. 13?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In light of the Minister's assurances, I will withdraw the amendment.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 to 19, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 7, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(c) in section 18(5)(a), by the substitution of “within 3 years of the adoption by the Council of the guidelines first adopted by it” for “within 3 years of the first guidelines being adopted by the Council”.

Section 4 amends the Judicial Council Act 2019 and reflects changes necessitated in light of recent findings of the Supreme Court. Deputies will be aware that the Supreme Court found that the personal injury guidelines which came into force in 2021 have the force of law. It also identified a constitutional fault in the Act, and the Bill, as introduced, addresses that issue.

Briefly, there are in essence two elements of the Bill amending the 2019 Act: amendments to section 7 and the inclusion of new section 89A. Together, these rectify the deficiencies in the 2019 Act highlighted by the Supreme Court.

The amendments to section 7 of the Judicial Council Act, as inserted by section 4 of the Bill, provide for procedures relating to future amendments to the personal injuries guidelines. The procedures require that proposed amendments to the guidelines be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and should be approved by resolution of each House prior to the adoption of the amendments by the Judicial Council. The Act provides that the guidelines are to be reviewed at least once every three years. The new section 89A of the Judicial Council Act 2019, as inserted by section 4, provides that, notwithstanding any other provisions in the Act, the personal injuries guidelines adopted by the council have continued to be valid and remain so, subject to the amendments to the guidelines in due course being adopted in accordance with the new procedures introduced under the new section 7(2)(ga). Arising from ongoing consultation and further advice, the provisions of the Judicial Council Act 2019 inserted by the Bill concerning the continuing validity of the guidelines require further refinement and adjustment. This is carried through in the group of amendments Nos. 14 and 16 to 19, inclusive. These are all essentially technical and drafting amendments.

Amendment No. 18 is the key amendment in this group. It further amends the Judicial Council Act 2019 to clarify that the reference date for the continuing validity of the guidelines contained in the new section 89A is from 24 April 2021, the date on which the guidelines became operative, rather than the date of adoption by the council, which was 6 March of the same year.

All other adjustments to the text are consequential. Amendment No. 14 is a textual amendment to section 18(5)(a) of the Judicial Council Act, which removes a reference to the guidelines adopted in 2021 as being the first guidelines. This is because under the Act there will be only "the guidelines" and the amendments to those guidelines, with no other personal injuries guidelines. Therefore, the reference to first guidelines is potentially confusing. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are consequential drafting amendments. Amendment No. 19 carries the effect of these drafting changes into the related sections of the Judicial Council Act: section 18, which deals with the role of the personal injuries guidelines committee, section 11, which deals with the role of the board of the Judicial Council, and section 7, which deals with the role of the Judicial Council in respect of the personal injuries guidelines function.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 7, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(d) by the insertion of the following section after section 32:

“Superannuation

32A. (1) The Board shall, as soon as practicable after the coming into operation of section 14(d) of the Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024—

(a) prepare and submit to the Minister, and

(b) with the approval of the Minister given with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform,

make a scheme for the granting of superannuation benefits to or in respect of any person appointed to be the Secretary.

(2) A scheme made under this section shall fix the time and conditions of retirement for a person to or in respect of whom superannuation benefits are payable under the scheme.

(3) A scheme made under this section shall be carried out by the Board in accordance with its terms.

(4) No superannuation benefit shall be granted by the Board to or in respect of a person to or in respect of whom superannuation benefits are payable under a scheme made under this section nor shall any other arrangement be entered into for the provision of any superannuation benefit to such person on ceasing to hold office, otherwise than in accordance with—

(a) a scheme or schemes made under this section, or

(b) an arrangement approved by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform.

(5) Every scheme made under this section shall make provision for appeals.

(6) (a) Every scheme made under this section may be amended or revoked by a subsequent scheme made under this section.

(b) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to the making of a subsequent scheme referred in paragraph (a).

(7) The Minister shall cause a scheme made under this section to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is approved under this section and, if a resolution annulling the scheme is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the scheme is laid before it, the scheme shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

(8) In this section—

‘superannuation benefit’ means a pension, gratuity or other allowance payable on resignation, retirement or death;

‘scheme made under this section’ means a scheme made by the Board in accordance with subsection (1) and includes a subsequent scheme, referred to in subsection (6), made by the Board.”.”.

The purpose of this amendment to section 4 is to amend the Judicial Council Act by the insertion of a new section 32A. Section 32 of the Act makes provision for the secretary of the Judicial Council. The secretary was a civil servant appointed before 1995. Because the Judicial Council did not specify the status of the secretary, the officeholder is deemed to be a public servant, and some difficulty has been experienced in settling the superannuation entitlements in this position. The officeholder is entitled to superannuation benefits, and a scheme is currently being arranged for that purpose. The Judicial Council is in the process of establishing the Judicial Council staff superannuation scheme. While the staff of the Judicial Council are civil servants, the secretary to the council is a public servant and there is a requirement to establish a superannuation scheme in relation to this position. I am advised that the introduction of such a scheme would require an enabling provision in the Judicial Council Act. The new section 32A will provide that enabling provision. Amendment No. 15 provides that the board of the Judicial Council shall prepare and make a scheme for the granting of superannuation benefits to the secretary to the council. The scheme must first be submitted for the Minister's approval, to be given with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Under subsection (2) of the new section, a scheme made under this section shall fix the time and the conditions of retirement for a person to or in respect of whom superannuation benefits are payable under the scheme.

The section requires that a superannuation scheme be made under the section and that it be carried out by the board of the Judicial Council in accordance with its terms. The superannuation scheme may be amended or revoked by a subsequent scheme made under this section. Deputies will note that the proposed new section 32A(7) requires that the Minister shall:

...cause a scheme made under this section to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is approved under this section and, if a resolution annulling the scheme is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the scheme is laid before it, the scheme shall be annulled accordingly...

However, the subsection provides that this is done without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the scheme.

The provisions of the section are based on existing provisions in other areas where superannuation provision is required in respect of a particular office. Given that this applies to one individual who has been disadvantaged by the situation he has found himself in, I ask Deputies to support the amendment.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 7, line 30, to delete “First personal injuries guidelines” and substitute “Amendments to personal injuries guidelines”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 7, line 33, to delete “first guidelines” and substitute “guidelines”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 7, line 34, to delete “that date” and substitute “24 April 2021 (being the date on which section 99 came into operation)”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 7, to delete lines 38 to 42 and substitute the following: “(2) The reference in section 18(5) to the guidelines first adopted by the Council shall be construed as a reference to the guidelines and, accordingly—

(a) the Board shall, in accordance with section 11(1)(d), review any draft amendments to the guidelines that have been prepared and submitted by the Personal Injuries Guidelines Committee to the Board under section 18(2)(b) with the review of the guidelines completed by that Committee before the coming into operation of this section, and

(b) section 7(2)(ga) shall apply to the adoption by the Council of any such amendments to the guidelines.

(3) The reference in section 90(1) to the personal injuries guidelines adopted by the Council shall be construed as a reference to the guidelines.”,”.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 8, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “(e) in section 7—

(i) in subsection (2), by the deletion in paragraph (h) of “adopt and publish in such manner as it considers appropriate” and the substitution of “subject to subsection (2C), adopt and publish in such manner as it considers appropriate”, and

(ii) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (2B):

“(2C) Sentencing guidelines may be adopted by the Council under subsection (2)(h) only where—

(a) a draft of the guidelines has first been laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and

(b) a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each such House.

(2D) For the purposes of subsection (2C), the Council shall submit a draft of the guidelines it proposes to adopt to the Minister and the Minister shall cause a draft of the guidelines to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after the receipt thereof.

(2E) In subsections (2C) and (2D), the reference to sentencing guidelines includes any amendments to sentencing guidelines that are proposed for adoption under subsection (2)(h)(ii).”,

and

(f) in section 91, by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2):

“(2A) The first draft sentencing guidelines prepared for submission to the Board by the Sentencing Guidelines and Information Committee shall include guidelines about—

(a) the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for a court to impose a suspended or deferred custodial sentence on an offender in the proceedings before it, and

(b) the circumstances in which imposition of a suspended or deferred custodial sentence is not appropriate.”.”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 21 to 28, inclusive, and 32 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 8, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“PART 5

AMENDMENT OF BROADCASTING ACT 2009

Definition (Part 5)

5. In this Part, “Act of 2009” means the Broadcasting Act 2009.”.

Amendments Nos. 21 and 32 are of a technical nature and provide for the inclusion of subsequent amendments to the Broadcasting Act as well as consequential amendments to the Long Title of the Bill. Amendment No. 22 is a technical amendment to update the definition of “electronic communications network” in the Broadcasting Act 2009 as per the European Electronic Communications Code and the EU directive. Amendments Nos. 23 to 28, inclusive, relate to terrorist content online. I propose to take these amendments together as they are inter-related.

The amendments to the Broadcasting Act 2009 extend the existing powers of Coimisiún na Meán under Part 8B of the Broadcasting Act to investigate and impose sanctions to include infringements under the EU regulation on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online. The EU regulation provides that designated competent authorities in member states can issue removal orders requiring hosting service providers anywhere in the EU to remove terrorist content so that it is not accessible to the public online. An Garda Síochána has been designated as the Irish competent authority to issue such removal orders under the regulation.

There terrorist content online regulation also requires Ireland to designate a competent authority to impose penalties on hosting service providers based in Ireland that commit infringements under the terrorist content online regulation. Under the Broadcasting Act, Coimisiún na Meán already has a role with regard to harmful online content and it has detailed powers to investigate and sanction contraventions. The Government has decided that it should be designated as the Irish competent authority to impose penalties for infringements under the terrorist content online regulation. I thank the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, and her officials for engaging with mine in this regard. These amendments are necessary to extend the existing powers of Coimisiún na Meán under Part 8B of the Broadcasting Act to investigate and impose sanctions to include infringements under the terrorist content online regulation. After enactment, Coimisiún na Meán will be designated as the competent authority to impose these penalties.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 8, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 2 of Act of 2009

6. Section 2 of the Act of 2009 is amended by—

(a) the substitution of the following definition for the definition of “electronic communications network”:

“ ‘electronic communications network’ means transmission systems, whether or not based on a permanent infrastructure or centralised administration capacity, and, where applicable, switching or routing equipment and other resources, including network elements which are not active, which permit the conveyance of signals by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic means, including satellite networks, fixed (circuit- and packet-switched, including internet) and mobile networks, electricity cable systems, to the extent that they are used for the purpose of transmitting signals, networks used for radio and television broadcasting, and cable television networks, irrespective of the type of information conveyed;”,

and

(b) the insertion of the following definitions:

“ ‘hosting service provider’ has the same meaning as it has in the Terrorist Content Online Regulation;

‘Terrorist Content Online Regulation’ means Regulation (EU) 2021/784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online;”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 8, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 21 of Act of 2009

7. Section 21(12) of the Act of 2009 is amended by the deletion of the definition of “hosting service provider”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 8, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 139ZG of Act of 2009

8. Section 139ZG(1) of the Act of 2009 is amended in the definition of “contravention” by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (b):

“(ba) an infringement by a hosting service provider of Article 3(3) or (6), Article 4(2) or (7), Article 5(1), (2), (3), (5) or (6), Article 6, Article 7, Article 10, Article 11, Article 14(5), Article 15(1), or Article 17, of the Terrorist Content Online Regulation,”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 8, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“Insertion of Chapter 1A into Part 8B of Act of 2009

9. Part 8B of the Act of 2009 is amended by the insertion of the following Chapter after Chapter 1:

“CHAPTER 1A

Provision of information for purposes of functions of Commission as competent authority under Terrorist Content Online Regulation

Provision of information for purposes of functions of Commission as competent authority under Terrorist Content Online Regulation

139ZGA. (1) The Commission may by notice in writing require a person (in this section referred to as ‘the person’) to provide the Commission with information relating to whether the person—

(a) is a hosting service provider, or

(b) is a hosting service provider that is, or has been, exposed to terrorist content.

(2) A notice under subsection (1) shall specify the information to be provided by the person and the form and manner in which that information shall be provided.

(3) The person shall comply with a notice under subsection (1) within a period of 20 working days of the date of the notice under that subsection or within such further period as may be agreed in writing before the expiry of the 20 days between the Commission and the person concerned.

(4) The Commission may, on notice to the person, apply to a judge of the District Court who is assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District for an order under subsection (5) where it appears to the Commission that the person has failed to comply with subsection (3).

(5) The judge of the District Court may, on hearing an application under subsection (4), where he or she is satisfied that the person concerned has failed to comply with subsection (3), make an order directing the person, within such period as is specified in the order, to provide the information requested in the notice under subsection (1).

(6) In this section—

‘exposed to terrorist content’ shall be construed in accordance with Article 5 of the Terrorist Content Online Regulation, and

‘terrorist content’ has the same meaning as it has in Article 2(7) of the Terrorist Content Online Regulation.”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 8, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 139ZK of Act of 2009

10. Section 139ZK(1) of the Act of 2009 is amended—

(a) in paragraph (a)(i), by the insertion of “, hosting service provider” after “audiovisual on-demand media service”, and

(b) in paragraph (g), by the insertion of “hosting service provider” after “audiovisual on-demand media service,”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 8, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 139ZS of Act of 2009

11. Section 139ZS of the Act of 2009 is amended— (a) in subsection (4), by the substitution of “Other than where subsection (4A)

applies, in deciding” for “In deciding”, and

(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (4):

“(4A) Where a contravention falls within paragraph (ba) of the definition of ‘contravention’ in section 139ZG, in deciding whether or not to impose an administrative financial sanction on a hosting service provider, the Commission shall have regard to all relevant circumstances, including the following:

(a) the nature, gravity and duration of the contravention;

(b) whether the contravention was intentional or negligent;

(c) previous contraventions by the hosting service provider;

(d) the financial strength of the hosting service provider;

(e) the level of cooperation of the hosting service provider with the competent authorities designated pursuant to Article 12(1) of the Terrorist Content Online Regulation;

(f) the nature and size of the hosting service provider, in particular whether it is a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise;

(g) the degree of fault of the hosting service provider, taking into account the technical and organisational measures taken by the hosting service provider to comply with the Terrorist Content Online Regulation.”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 8, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 139ZW of Act of 2009

12. Section 139ZW of the Act of 2009 is amended—

(a) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1A):

“(1AA) In the case of a contravention falling within paragraph (ba) of the definition of ‘contravention’ in section 139ZG that amounts to, or is a result of, a systematic or persistent failure to comply with obligations under Article 3(3) of the Terrorist Content Online Regulation, an administrative financial sanction may be imposed under section 139ZS of up to 4 per cent of the global turnover of the inquiry subject in the financial year preceding the date of the decision under section 139ZS to impose the sanction.”,

(b) in subsection (3), by the substitution of “Other than where subsection (3A) applies, the Commission” for “The Commission”,

(c) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (3):

“(3A) In the case of a contravention falling within paragraph (ba) of the definition of ‘contravention’ in section 139ZG, the Commission shall have regard to all relevant circumstances when determining the amount of the administrative financial sanction imposed under section 139ZS, including the following:

(a) the nature, gravity and duration of the contravention;

(b) whether the contravention was intentional or negligent;

(c) previous contraventions by the hosting service provider;

(d) the financial strength of the hosting service provider;

(e) the level of cooperation of the hosting service provider with the competent authorities designated pursuant to Article 12(1) of the Terrorist Content Online Regulation;

(f) the nature and size of the hosting service provider, in particular whether it is a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise;

(g) the degree of fault of the hosting service provider, taking into account the technical and organisational measures taken by the provider to comply with the requirements of the Terrorist Content Online Regulation.”,

and

(d) in subsection (4)(b), by the substitution of “a hosting service provider or a provider” for “provider”.”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 8, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“PART 8

AMENDMENT OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2023

Amendment of section 36 of Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2023

8. Section 36 of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2023 is amended—

(a) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):

“(1A) The Director shall be a civil servant in the Civil Service of the State.”,

and

(b) by the deletion of subsection (8).”.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 9, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “Terms and conditions not to be worsened

8. Except following consultation and in accordance with an agreement negotiated with any recognised trade union or recognised representative or other staff association concerned, no amendment to an enactment effected by the subsequent sections of this Part shall operate or be applied so as to result in a person, while remaining in the same employment, receiving a lesser scale of pay or being made subject to less beneficial terms and conditions of service than the scale of pay to which he or she would have been entitled and the terms and conditions of service to which he or she would have been subject but for the amendment concerned.”.

This amendment requires principal terms and conditions not to be worsened. Provisions along these lines are relatively common in statutes dealing with the pay and conditions of public servants. In the Minister's own Department, she will be familiar with similar provisions in Acts dealing with the transfer of civil servants to work for the Courts Service or as civilian staff of An Garda Síochána. The purpose of the proposed provision is to safeguard against unilateral worsening of pay or other terms and conditions of employment. Such a safeguard is all the more important when, as here, the Minister proposes to effectively arrogate to herself and her colleagues the power to alter such terms and conditions by unilateral action without prior consultation and agreement. We in the Labour Party believe that the need for such a safeguard is clear.

This goes back to the point I raised on the relevant section earlier and in the context of the amendment that was ruled out of order, which is that there ought to be an obligation under law placed on the Minister to consult and engage with uniformed service members, their trade unions or recognised associations when decisions are being made about their terms and conditions. When I refer to terms and conditions, I refer to decisions that will be made in the future regarding optional retirement dates. I will clarify some references the Minister made earlier on the remarks I made on the retirement dates of uniformed service members. In reality, the retirement age for such workers is moving on an optional basis from 60 to 62, albeit with lesser terms and conditions. That is unfortunate. When I refer to lesser terms and conditions, I mean that the opportunity to avail of fast accrual is denied. The argument may very well be made that this is optional. The Minister might say that, in situations like this, individuals may have to accept lesser terms and conditions. I do not believe that should be the case.

As the Minister quite correctly said earlier on and as I know she sincerely believes, because of the nature of the work uniformed service workers in our public service do, they experience additional stress. Their work may be associated with physical strain. We need to be very careful in changing their retirement age, notwithstanding the fact that it is optional. We can be thankful that we are all living longer and healthier lives.

People will want, on an optional basis perhaps, to work that bit longer. That needs to be legislated for but the point is how we do it. The Minister recognises that fast accrual is in place because of the impact and often the toll that prison officers, members of Defence Forces and of An Garda Síochána take in serving their country and the demands that are placed on them. We believe that when it comes to considering these questions, the conditions and terms of workers should not be worsened when they are working longer. We propose the amendment because of our concerns about fast accrual and the fact that if a person works on an optional basis up to 62, his or her pension is subject to standard rating and not fast accrual. It is something that we will return to again because undoubtedly will be having additional debates in this Chamber as people live longer, as people may wish to work longer in the future. We have settled some questions about the State pension age and so on. We have auto-enrolment now, which is very welcome. That is something we have debated here for a long time. These are issues that will continue from time to time to challenge us. We will debate them more comprehensively and with more space as the opportunities arise into the future and when we make some changes.

I would appreciate the Minister's perspective on this amendment. I look forward to hearing what she has to say on this important matter.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the interests of brevity I will keep it short. We of course support the right of some members of An Garda Síochána and the fire service, notwithstanding the additional shift work, if they wish to continue on serving, and also we respect the union position. We of course have concerns about some of the sections that unilaterally grant the Minister power to amend the retirement age at any time. There should of course be agreement with the unions before Ministers would implement any changes to superannuation by regulation.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 8 provides the Minister for Justice with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform with the power to make regulations relating to the retirement of prison officers, including specifying a retirement age greater than the current age, which is 60. Existing minimum retirement ages contained in primary legislation are not affected. We discussed that. I want to make that clear on the floor of the House.

Likewise, fast accrual terms cannot be amended under this regulation. While pay scales are referenced in the amendment, Part 7 does not concern pay. Again I want to make that clear for any Member listening. Similarly, section 10 provides the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, with the consent again of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, with the power to make regulations relating to the retirement of firefighters, including specifying the retirement age greater than their current mandatory retirement age. Minimum retirement ages again are not affected by the regulation-making power nor fast accrual terms. What may be prescribed in both cases is the new upper age of retirement greater than 60 and what they have at the moment.

Representative bodies, and this is where we are getting at it more broadly, will still have the opportunity and will still continue to negotiate on their agreed terms and conditions or any terms of conditions of employment for their members with public service employers and the respective Ministers under the existing forms that currently exist. To be really clear, there is nothing here that I am proposing that in any way changes a person's terms and conditions. It does not impact on their ability to retire at the age at which they wish to. If it is before the age of 60 or 62, it does not in any way impact the fast accrual pension, which only applies in these certain circumstances. For any of those to be changed, that would absolutely require not just changes in the Dáil here with approval b votes but significant engagement with the relevant organisations.

I go back to the fact that there are people who want to continue to work. One of them raised it with me today. That person who is due to retire on 21 August and without this legislation passing, they would be forced to retire on that date instead of potentially being able to work for another year or two if they wish. That is the objective we all agree on here. I reassure Deputies that this will not in any way impact on an individual's terms and conditions. They can only be changed with engagement with the associations through the public service employer and the respective Ministers. I mentioned a number of Ministers in that regard.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 31:

"In page 5, line 9, to delete “to amend the Immigration Act 2003, the Judicial Council Act 2019,” and substitute the following:

“to amend the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, Immigration Act 2003, the International Protection Act 2015, the Judicial Council Act 2019, the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2023,”.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 5, line 11, after “2023;” to insert the following:

“to give further effect to Regulation (EU) 2021/784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online and for that and other purposes to amend the Broadcasting Act 2009;”.