Seanad debates
Wednesday, 11 June 2025
Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material (Amendment) Bill 2022: Committee Stage
2:00 am
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “ “child sexual abuse material” means any visual, audio, textual material, digitally-generated or artificially created material that depicts or otherwise represents a person who is, or is depicted or represented as being, a child and who is engaged in or is depicted or represented as being engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct, or any visual representation of the sexual organs of a person who is, or is depicted or represented as being, a child, for primarily sexual purposes;
“child sexual exploitation material” has the same meaning as “child sexual abuse material” in this Act.”.
I will be withdrawing the amendment to bring it up on Report Stage.
Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is the Senator going to speak on the amendment?
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I know the Government is accepting all the amendments to the Act. It is not opposing any of the amendments today. We are absolutely delighted with that. This Bill and all the amendments we put forward were done in line with the Children's Rights Alliance, the Rape Crisis Network, MECPATHS and other children’s organisations. We have addressed all the elements the Government was worried about on Second Stage. I want to move and withdraw the amendments because they are being accepted so it should not take all that long.
I want to thank people but I do not know if I can do this now. Do we go straight to the amendments or can I talk for a minute or two?
Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The amendments need to be debated and the Minister of State will respond on it. However, the Senator might want to see what the Minister of State says before she withdraws it.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No. He is not opposing any of the amendments. It is pointless me waiting here until 5.30 p.m. this evening and debating when he is not opposing any of our amendments.
Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The debate is in here. Items are discussed, debated and agreed in the House. If the Senator moves and withdraws the amendment, then she will have to resubmit it on Report Stage.
Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
But if the Senator withdraws the amendment, it cannot be made.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will move the amendment and discuss it on Report Stage. Can I do that?
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. I will move it and discuss it on Report Stage.
Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will bring in Senator Boyhan and then we will hear what the Minister of State has to say.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am trying to be helpful. For clarification, my understanding is that there is one amendment at a time, so there is only one live amendment. The Senator may wish to move it, and if it is agreed, then we go onto the next one and we take them one by one because some people may wish to speak. I have no difficulty with that. Only one amendment is live on the floor at any one time. Would that be the Cathaoirleach's ruling?
Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
For the benefit of Members, if there has not been substantial discussion on the amendments, and this is not often, that there can be an issue on Report Stage. We had this discussion during a previous Bill where an amendment was moved and withdrawn, but because there was no substantial discussion, there was a danger that it could not be brought in on Report Stage. It had been discussed on previous sections in the amendment. Does the Senator wish to wait until the end of the debate to decide what to do with the amendment?
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes. That is fine. I thank the Senator. I will not speak on it now.
Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will speak on the amendment. I rise to speak in strong support for this amendment and to commend the Senators who have brought forward this Bill today and the amendment for its improvement. The work here of Senators Flynn, Higgins, Ruane and Black is not just legislative. It is moral, principled and necessary.
For too long our laws have used the term “child pornography”, a term that frankly sanitises the horror of what is being done to children. It is a term that implies consensual actors creating content of their own violation and for their own economic gain. In the case of “child pornography” nothing could be further from the truth. Let the law be very clear on this point: there is no such thing as consensual pornography involving a child. What we are talking about is abuse, plain and simple. This amendment calls it what it is: child sexual abuse material. I welcome the clarity this amendment and this Bill will bring. It is not only a change in language but a change in how we frame the crime. It centres the child, not the content. It centres the harm, not the medium. That is a shift we should all support.
I also acknowledge the foresight in how this amendment has been drafted. It ensures legal continuity so that no case, prosecution or victim is left behind because of a change in terminology. That is responsible and compassionate law-making. I particularly appreciate the inclusion of digitally generated and artificial material in the definition. We are living in a time when technology is moving faster than our laws. This amendment ensures our protections for children are not stuck in the past.Let us be very clear about another reason this is important. The sexual predators who deal in this abusive material are no fools. Sadly, the market for this type of content is all too profitable. Those who profit from the suffering and abuse of minors are always innovating new ways to stay one step ahead of the law. Therefore, it is our duty as lawmakers to stay one step ahead of them. I hope that this updated definition will help orient the focus of our law enforcement towards the online dimension of sexual abuse and that we will follow up our change of language with fresh action and fresh resolve to clamp down on it. This is very much needed. For example, earlier this month, The Journalbroke a story that thousands of images of Irish women were being shared on an online forum without their consent or knowledge. Among these images were many of young girls, minors, in their school uniforms, with users on this site sharing their names, ages and location. The worrying part of this story is that it was discovered and brought to light by a news website rather than the Garda. The fact is that the Garda was slow to respond publicly. The forum was only removed after media exposure.
The lack of enforcement action raises serious concerns about the State's capacity to respond to online abuse. I hope this update and expansion of our legal definitions will help to correct that. I have always said that the protection of children and minors must be above politics. Today, I see that principle in action. Senators from different backgrounds and perspectives have come together to do what is right. This is where the Seanad works best. I thank the Senators who introduced this Bill for their commitment to protecting children. I am proud to support this amendment. I urge my colleagues on the Government side to support it as well.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I begin by thanking Jessica Bray, Emer Taylor, Carolyn Farrar and my Civil Engagement colleagues. I thank Colm Gannon, the Rape Crisis Network of Ireland, the Children's Rights Alliance and MECPATHS. I thank Jamie Connolly from the Bills Office. I also thank Corey O'Hara for all his hard work on these amendments.
This grouping of amendments does exactly what it says on the tin. It calls out child abuse for what it is. I hope the Minister of State will accept the amendments in this grouping. As I said, it was done in line with civil engagement organisations and individuals who have been victims of child sexual abuse material.
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have 42 amendments in nine groupings. Is that correct?
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are dealing with amendment No. 1.
Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are dealing with amendment No. 1 to section 1 on its own.
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very interesting and important Private Members' Bill. I acknowledge the intentions of Senators Flynn, Black, Higgins and Ruane in bringing this forward in the first place in 2022 and in keeping the subject alive since then. It is a feature of language that our understanding of words and phrases develops over time. This is particularly relevant in light of new knowledge coming from research into the causes of crime and other issues in society.
While the term "child pornography" was considered appropriate for the legislation at the time that the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 entered into law, as the Senators have pointed out, our understanding of those words now does not fully reflect the seriousness of these offences. Any similar legislation to be enacted today would need to convey our improved understanding of this material as being evidence of the sexual exploitation and abuse of children, and not merely as offensive images or video recordings.
On Second Stage, my colleague the Minister, Deputy Browne, conveyed the Government's decision not to oppose the Bill. The aims underlying it would be clearly of benefit if they can be achieved. Unfortunately, however, it is not as straightforward an issue to address as it might first appear. The words "child pornography" appear across the Statute Book in legislation relating to a variety of offences, many of which are serious in nature. It is essential that these offences are not undermined.
It is vital that we maintain the legislative coherence necessary for existing offences to simultaneously remain fully enforceable, sufficiently fair to victims of crime and fully in line with the requirements of the Constitution. I understand that the amendments prepared for today's debate are intended to address these issues and I welcome the opportunity to consider them and to see if a way forward can be found to improve our legislation on these issues. I wanted to say that as an opening observation on the debate we are having.
On amendment No. 1, I welcome the insertion of the definition of child sexual abuse material for the purpose of the amendments to be introduced by the Bill into other legislation. Clarity about the meaning of the terms used in legislation is essential to delivering on policy objectives. While I do not oppose the amendment, I note that legal advice may be required in order to ensure there are no unintended consequences for any other legislation to be amended by this Bill.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I support Senator Flynn's Bill. I know she has been working on it for a long time. It is a really important issue that brings us in line with things like the Luxembourg guidelines. Obviously, words matter. The power of words in legislation reflects our society, which is why the change she is introducing is so important. It is long overdue. It confronts language that we have tolerated relating to the abuse of children and it demands that we confront the truth. We need to acknowledge the horrific abuse that is happening in some of these awful cases.
I have spent a great deal time in this Chamber talking about harm, whether that is in medicine or in policy. I know the damage that can be done when we dilute the truth. A similar dynamic applies here in terms of the dilution in the words we use. When it comes to child sexual abuse, we have allowed the language to soften the violence, to protect the perpetrator and to downplay the suffering of the children involved. The term "child pornography" is used as if it is just another form of adult content, which it is not. It is a misleading term which suggests something consensual and transactional, but there is no such thing as consensual sex involving a child. That is not pornography. It is documented sexual abuse and evidence of a crime. Every time we use the term "child pornography", we participate in a culture that conceals the truth of what is happening to those children. As legislators, we cannot allow this to continue. I appreciate the Minister of State's comments that he is committed to seeing those changes.
This amendment brings us in line in terms of morality. It uses the words "child exploitation material" instead. That matters because it tells the truth. It acknowledges that we are looking at harm that is irreparable and devastating, and not something that should ever be normalised or minimised through language. It is not just in the context of that law that this matters; it also applies to the media. We often see headlines in this country which have described child abuse in terms that obscure reality.
I acknowledge the work of Fix It Ireland, which is a campaign by the sexual violence centre in Cork that has been tireless in exposing the kind of media reporting that does real damage. We may have all seen these headlines, but I will mention a few. There are headlines like "Man had sex with 12-year-old girl", as if a 12-year-old could ever legally or meaningfully consent. That is not sex; that is rape. Another one stated "Teen involved in sex act with older man". She was not involved in a sex act with an older man; she was abused. This kind of reporting does not just fail survivors; it also retraumatises them. It shifts blame and keeps the focus away from the adults who have caused that harm. We must be better than that. We must expect better of our media. We must lead by example by changing those words in our laws.
I commend Senator Eileen Flynn. I understand the Government will be accepting these amendments, and I commend it on taking that step. This is a great example of co-operation and moving forward on these types of issues.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister of State for accepting our amendment. Just for his and other Members' clarity, if this amendment is accepted, it changes the definition for judges as well. Many solicitors who go into these cases do not want to be using the term "child pornography". They want to call it exactly what it is, that is, child sexual abuse material. I want to be very clear on that. As other Senators have said, the definition aligns with the EU directive. It is also recognised at a global level.
Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senators Flynn, Black, Higgins and Ruane for this important legislation. They have been pursuing it for a long time. I also welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the House.
Section 1 broadly covers the Bill, so it is quite convenient to cover more or less anything in the Bill when we speak to this section. I commend my colleagues in the Civil Engagement Group for introducing the Bill, which replaces the term "child pornography" in legislation with the term "child sexual abuse material", CSAM. Likewise, it replaces all mentions of "child trafficking and pornography" with the term "child trafficking and child sexual abuse material". The Minister of State was right in his introduction that words mattered. To describe child sexual abuse material as pornography is outdated, clearly, and does not reflect its nature, which is ultimately abusive. I understand the Bill is based on the Luxembourg guidelines, which were devised by 18 international organisations, including Interpol, Europol and multiple UN organisations. The Minister of State will be aware of that, and it is critical when discussing this legislation in the Irish context. The principle of the Bill is also supported by the Irish Rape Crisis Centre, which wants existing prosecutions to be upheld and for those convicted under the existing legislation to be subject to the same requirements. The Civil Engagement Group's amendments address these concerns.
In the previous Seanad, the Minister of State's predecessor said there were significant legal and technical issues that needed to be addressed. What has changed since then? I listened to the Minister of State's introduction where he said he would consider them. He has not actually confirmed to the House yet, as he had not had the opportunity yet, his position on each and every one of the 43 amendments. I am supportive of all the amendments, I want to be clear about that. Through the parliamentary process, though, we need to understand the Minister of State's view on them or his intention in respect of them. He talked about unintended consequences. He has to be afforded the opportunity to set out his stall to this House, where we are considering this important legislation.
Even though political party colleagues were supportive of the Bill then, it is important that we can continue to have that support. If there has been any change since the previous Minister of State was in the House, we would need to understand that and the rationale to be clearly set out for our consideration. I hope that we can address all of these outstanding issues and overcome the challenges the Minister of State might envisage, or his advisers might anticipate or suggest, bringing to the attention of the House. The Seanad was set up to be a revising House. That is our function. We are not a rubber stamp for legislation that falls up to us from the Lower House. We are a revising Chamber and it is up to us to consider all additional issues and to revise legislation if we think it is relevant, supportive and in line with the amendments we have.
I thank the Minister of State for his time today. I do not doubt his commitment. I have yet to see and hear the full explanation for the support and I hope it will be forthcoming. I assure my colleagues in the Civil Engagement Group that they have my full support for each and every amendment they are tabling today.
Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome guests of the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, from Laois and Offaly to the Gallery. I believe you are not in the same constituency any more but it is nice to seem you all travelling together. I also welcome guests of Eileen Lynch from Macroom in County Cork.
Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 22, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 37 and 43 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, lines 22 and 23, to delete “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material Act 1998” and substitute “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material Act 1998”.
Most amendments in this group are routine title updates, apart from amendment No. 43, which expands the scope beyond simple changes. We would be interested in hearing the Minister of State's reply on amendment No. 43 as well as the other amendments in the grouping. The others are no-brainers. I cannot come up with a speech and talk about the Bill when the Bill literally does exactly what it says on the tin. I cannot stress that enough. These amendments are doing that as well by changing the term "child pornography" to "child sexual abuse material". It is literally four words. I cannot find bigger things to be saying.
Amendment No. 43 is a little bit more complicated and we would like to hear the Minister of State's thoughts on it.
Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister of State for attending. We have mentioned that words matter. We would like to support Senator Flynn and the Civil Engagement Group on the Bill. It is timely and very much needed. This is more about semantics and the truth. It is calling out these crimes for exactly what they are. It is centring the experience around the victim and not framing it for the perpetrator. The Bill is about protecting children. It is about reframing the public understanding of abuse, reinforcing that these crimes are not about desire or sex, but about power, violence and exploitation. While changing the law will not undo the harm to the children who have suffered exploitation, it will help us to build a legal and cultural landscape where these crimes are named clearly, prosecuted fully and never minimised through euphemism. I commend Senator Flynn and the Civil Engagement Group for tabling the Bill and I urge that the Bill be passed through the House.
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Senators who spoke. I do not seek to oppose these amendments. However, there are some issues that were raised on Second Stage and these still remain. I am advised that it is not normal practice to amend the Long and Short Titles of statutes. However, I understand that no legal or constitutional reason has so far been identified as to why these amendments would not be possible. Indeed, this was done as part of the statute law revision project, which was aimed at simplifying the often long and confusing titles of some of the older legislation on the Statute Book.Indeed, this was done as part of the statute law revision project, which was aimed at simplifying the often long and confusing titles of some of the older legislation on the Statute Book. Given the nature of these amendments, I have been advised that it would be necessary to engage with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, OPC, on these very technical drafting matters. I do not anticipate any particular difficulty with the amendments to references to the current Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998, but I note that a comprehensive trawl of the Statute Book would be required to ensure every reference is found and amended. Amending the Long Title of this Private Members’ Bill also does not present any issues provided the final version fully reflects the purpose of the legislation.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is great to hear the Minister of State is not opposing the amendments in this section. It is important I am very clear. Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 22, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 37 and 43 were addressed at the previous debate with the then Minister, Deputy McEntee, and, since then, we have got support. We have been through these amendments with a fine-tooth comb. We know there will be no cost to the State and it is the right thing for the State to do. Language is of extreme importance. The only difference this is going to make is that judges will not have to use the term “child pornography” in courtrooms anymore. They can say how it is, and that is child sexual abuse with materials. It is so important we are clear. I am aware the Minister of State is not opposing these amendments, but I also want to put on the record that we have done what was asked of us by the Department of justice. As Senator Boyhan said, I am as broad as I am long coming in here and getting it to this stage, and not having 100% commitment from the Government is a bit disheartening. However, again, we did our work and I am delighted the Minister of State is not opposing these amendments. I do want to be very clear that it will not cost the State anything and, if anything, the Government will leave a good, positive legacy behind. It is simple and effective.
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Minister of State wish to come in again?
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have nothing to add.
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 21, 23, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36 and 38 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, lines 24 and 25, to delete “Child Sexual Exploitation Material” and substitute “Child Sexual Abuse Material”.
These amendments replace the words "child sexual exploitation material" with "child sexual abuse material" throughout the legislation. No individual definition is required as the amendments implement the core purpose of updating this legislation. It is best practice, etc.
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Senator and welcome the amendment to the language this Private Members’ Bill will insert into existing legislation. We are not opposing it. The legal advice received by our Department when this issue was first considered indicated using the phrase “child sexual exploitation material” could have unwelcome consequences for legislation that already uses similar language. Using the phrase “child sexual abuse material” appears to address this problem and is in line with international good practice. This term is now the preferred descriptor of legal measures and instruments for what was formerly called “child pornography” or “child sexual exploitation”. It is the preferred language in use by agencies, professionals and bodies working in the subject area. It makes sense for Ireland to be in alignment linguistically with our international and European counterparts as we are already aligned politically in tackling child sex abuse material.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, line 27, to delete “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material Act 1998” and substitute “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material Act 1998”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, lines 29 and 30, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, line 31, and in page 4, line 1, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, lines 3 and 4, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material".
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, lines 5 and 6, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, lines 8 and 9, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 4, line 12, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, lines 13 and 14, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 4, lines 16 and 17, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 4, lines 18 and 19, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 4, lines 20 and 21, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 4, lines 22 and 23, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 4, lines 24 and 25, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 4, lines 26 and 27, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 4, lines 30 and 31, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 4, lines 32 and 33, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 4, lines 34 and 35, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 4, lines 36 and 37, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, lines 4 and 5, to delete “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material Act 1998” and substitute “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material Act 1998”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 5, line 7, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 5, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(c) by the insertion of the following section after section 33:“Transitional provisions
33A. For the avoidance of doubt, any person who, before the commencement of the Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material (Amendment) Act 2025, was subject to notification requirements under this Act in relation to an offence involving child pornography shall continue to be subject to those requirements after the commencement of that Act as if the offence involved child sexual abuse material.”.".
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This amendment inserts new section 33A to address a critical gap in offender monitoring. Without the provision, individuals currently subject to notification requirements under the Sex Offenders Act might challenge their obligations on technical grounds when terminology changes. This amendment ensures continuous monitoring of all registered offenders without interruption, maintaining public safety while the legislative framework updates.
Sarah O'Reilly (Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senator Flynn and the Civil Engagement Group for their work on this issue. I agree with all the amendments and fully support their proposals. It is beyond time that our laws be updated so that images of child abuse are referred to as what they are.
We have a very serious problem of child trafficking and child sexual exploitation in this country. Aontú has exposed a number of alarming facts in recent weeks and some of these statistics are as follows: there are currently 37 children missing from Tusla's care, and 32 of them were refugees or seeking international protection in Ireland; since 2021, Tusla has made referrals to the Garda regarding 161 children who were suspected of being victims of child sexual exploitation, which is a form of child trafficking, with 115 of these children being in care and 46 "known to Tusla"; since 2014, a total of 235 children either in State care or known to Tusla have died, with ten murdered and 51 having died either by suicide or drug overdose; and Tusla has admitted to us that it accommodated 66 children in hotels over the past six months, which are unregulated placements with third party providers.
I call for a proper debate in this Chamber on child protection. I commend the group, MECPATHS, on its work to raise awareness about trafficking. Aontú has worked closely with MECPATHS and I know they also appreciate the proposal by Senator Flynn.
I ask the Government not to oppose this very basic but timely legislation.
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As Senator Flynn does not wish to speak, I call the Minister of State to respond.
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the Senator's proposal for a transitional provision to address concerns that the amendments could give rise to unwelcome effects on the Sex Offenders Act 2001, which is the legislation that provides, among other things, for the sex offenders register. It is essential that the legislation not be adversely impacted by any changes that we might wish to introduce.
While I am advised that this provision will require further consideration during drafting in order to ensure that it has the intended effect, I do not oppose it. However, I understand that it will be necessary to consider whether a range of further transitional provisions will be required to preserve the legal effect of all of the legislation that will be affected by the amendments introduced by this Private Members' Bill. This is potentially quite a substantial piece of work in itself but those are essentially drafting concerns as opposed to significant constitutional or legal issues and can be addressed in due course.
Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I acknowledge the Minister of State's comment that there are legal drafting concerns rather than constitutional issues, which is welcome.
I wish to reinforce the following: amendment No. 24 maintains exiting monitoring requirements under updated terminology. There is not an added cost in respect of enforcement agencies or the State. The amendment prevents offenders from seeking relief on technical grounds and some of the measures have been effective in other legislative updates that perhaps we can look to as well. It ensures that public safety is not compromised during that legal transition. I am sure there will be plenty of opportunities in the drafting process to ensure that that is in line.
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 5, lines 10 and 11, to delete “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material (Amendment) Act 2004” and substitute “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material (Amendment) Act 2004”.
These amendments update references to the "Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material (Amendment) Act 2004" in the Bill to keep it consistent. Simple language is all we have used in this section and these two amendments.
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Minister of State wish to respond?
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have nothing to add. I spoke on this group of amendments earlier.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 5, lines 14 and 15, to delete “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material Act 2004” and substitute “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material (Amendment) Act 2004”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 5, lines 17 and 18, to delete “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material Act 1998” and substitute “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material Act 1998”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 5, lines 24 and 25, to delete “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material Act 1998” and substitute “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material Act 1998”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 5, lines 26 and 27, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 5, line 29, to delete “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material Act 1998” and substitute “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material Act 1998”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 5, lines 32 and 33, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 5, lines 35 and 36, to delete “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material Act 1998” and substitute “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material Act 1998”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 6, lines 4 and 5, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 6, lines 7 and 8, to delete “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material Act 1998” and substitute “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material Act 1998”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 6, lines 11 and 12, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 6, lines 13 and 14, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 6, line 18, to delete “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material Act 1998” and substitute “Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material Act 1998”.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 6, line 20, to delete “child sexual exploitation material” and substitute “child sexual abuse material”.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 6, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“Legal continuity 9. (1) The amendments made by this Act shall not affect the validity of any proceedings, whether pending or completed, or any investigation, prosecution, conviction, sentence, order, requirement or obligation made, imposed, issued or otherwise undertaken before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Any offence committed, or proceedings begun, before the commencement of this Act shall continue to be governed by the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence or the commencement of the proceedings.
(3) Any reference in any document, including any warrant, indictment, order or other legal document, to “child pornography” shall be construed as a reference to “child sexual abuse material”. For avoidance of doubt, references to “child sexual exploitation material” in the title or preamble of this Act shall be construed as synonymous with “child sexual abuse material”.”.
I start by saying "Well done" to my colleague, Senator Flynn, on the phenomenal work that she has done, along with her team of Corey and Jessica. It is fantastic legislation. I also thank the Minister of State and the Government for supporting it.
This is important legislation, as it replaces in Irish legislation the phrase "child pornography” with the phrase “child sexual exploitation material”. Most of the amendments are simple changes in terminology but several introduce important legal safeguards. We are extremely happy that the Minister of State is acceding to the Bill.
Amendment No. 39 protects all existing legal proceedings, investigations, prosecutions and convictions from disruption. It also ensures that ongoing cases continue under the law enforced when they began while providing automatic translation of references to the phrase "child pornography” to the phrase “child sexual exploitation material” in all legal documents. This prevents victims from having to retestify and maintains the integrity of past convictions. Therefore, victims and witnesses will not need to reappear in court due to changes in terminology and there is no risk of convictions being invalidated on technical grounds. Courts can apply the new term without relegating past evidence. The Bill ensures continuity in family law proceedings and protective orders. Plus, there are no financial implications with the justice system. Finally, the Bill aligns with best practice in legislative updates.
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We do not intend to oppose the amendment. I am advised that the provision for what is termed "Legal continuity" would need further consideration in drafting in order to ensure it has the full effect and broad reach that appears to be intended, but any issues are not insurmountable.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 6, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: "Evidence and procedure
9. (1) Evidence that was collected, obtained or admissible in relation to an offence involving child pornography shall be deemed to be collected, obtained or admissible in relation to an offence involving child sexual abuse material.
(2) Expert witnesses, opinions, evidence or testimony previously admissible in relation to child pornography shall be deemed equally admissible in relation to child sexual abuse material.".
This amendment relates to safeguarding victims and is concerned with terminology usage. It is not only a very simple proposal, it is also very effective. I hope the Minister of State will accept it.
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are not opposing this amendment, but we have reservations about it. I am advised that this provision, which relates to evidence and procedure, is fraught with legal risk and would require careful consideration of its potential for undesirable impacts upon criminal investigations and court procedures. Given the strong likelihood of legal challenges to the judicial processes and procedures that culminate in the imprisonment of offenders that could arise from the changes to be introduced by this amendment, it may not be possible to effectively mitigate all possible ways in which unwanted outcomes could arise. It would be necessary to obtain strong legal advice in support of this provision before it is allowed to enter into law.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Am I hearing the Minister of State right in that he is not accepting the amendment?
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are not opposing it.
Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The amendment seeks to preserve the validity of forensic reports and expert opinions. It avoids delays in trials caused by re-examining evidence, with no extra resources required for evidence management. It also protects the work of technical and digital forensic teams. It would serve to maintain confidence in the justice process, having been drafted with input from forensic and legal practitioners. It safeguards the admissibility of technical evidence and expert testimony. We are happy the Minister of State is not opposing the amendment, but I hope we can discuss it further as we move forward.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 6, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: "International obligations
9. Nothing in this Act shall prevent the State from complying with its obligations under international law, including—(a) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols,
(b) Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual abuse of children and child sexual abuse material (formerly referred to as child pornography), and
(c) the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (Lanzarote Convention)."
This amendment seeks to ensure that Ireland is in line with international frameworks on child protection. In the past few months, the State was named and shamed in a newspaper article for not reaching its obligations under EU and UN conventions to protect children, safeguard their rights and call this type of exploitation what it is, namely, child sexual abuse material.
Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I support the amendment. Shockingly, a report released today by Missing Children Europe tells us a child disappears in Europe every two minutes. We need to think about that. There are many reasons children disappear, including that they run away, there is parent abduction or as a result of child migration. Indeed, Europe has seen 50,000 unaccompanied minors over the past year. There could be criminal abductions or children may be lost or injured. There are various reasons for children going missing but some of them are targeted through online grooming and are then trafficked and sexually abused and exploited. Let us do the right thing by implementing this legislation. It seeks to protect children right up to the age of 18, which is why I stand with Senator Flynn and her colleagues on it. I welcome support for it by the Government.
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are not opposing this amendment. I am advised that its provisions, which relate to international obligations, would need further consideration in drafting to ensure they have the intended effect. It is, in essence, a drafting matter and is not insurmountable.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 6, to delete line 24 and substitute the following: "(2) This Act shall come into operation three months after the date of its passing to allow for necessary training and awareness of the changes amongst the judiciary, law enforcement, prosecutors, and other relevant stakeholders.".
I am interested to hear the Minister of State's comments on this amendment.
Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am advised that the postponement of the coming into effect of the Bill is, broadly speaking, a policy matter. Therefore, I do not oppose the amendment. I am further advised that there is no legal or practical need to set out the reasons the legislation is or is not coming into effect immediately on its passing by the Oireachtas. It appears the only legal effect of the amendment as currently worded would be to create a delay in the coming into effect of the Bill. If the intention is that the amendment would require the provision of training, it should be noted that the constitutional separation of powers places an obligation on the Oireachtas, as well as the Government, not to overreach by obliging the Judiciary to undertake prescribed actions that may include a requirement for training. It would be necessary to obtain clear supporting legal advice if this is to be pursued in the Bill. The training of practitioners may be better achieved by other means than a provision in legislation. At a practical level, a period of three months would not be adequate to identify and train everybody who is captured by the language in the amendment.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 3, line 9, to delete "Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material Act 1998" and substitute "Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Abuse Material Act 1998".
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 3, lines 13 and 14, to delete ""Child Pornography" with "Child Sexual Exploitation Material" within those Acts and other Acts." and substitute the following: "to insert the term "Child Pornography" with "Child Sexual Abuse Material" within those Acts and other Acts; to ensure legal continuity in prosecutions and proceedings; to clarify the continued application of the Sex Offenders Act 2001; to ensure compliance with international obligations; and to provide for related matters.".
Garret Kelleher (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the debate that has taken place. I welcome to the Gallery Mary Crilly from the Sexual Violence Centre Cork, who has done tremendous work in this area for more than four decades, for which she was awarded the freedom of Cork.
I am very happy with the way the debate on the Bill has proceeded. I seek clarification on the wording of amendment No. 44. It proposes to "insert the term "Child Pornography" with "Child Sexual Abuse Material". I believe the intention, in fact, is to replace the term "Child Pornography" with "Child Sexual Abuse Material". I commend Senator Flynn and her colleagues in the Civil Engagement Group on their fantastic work on the Bill. I would appreciate clarification on the wording issue I have identified before we proceed.
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senator Kelleher for pointing that out. Yes, the text of the amendment should contain the word "replace" rather than "insert".
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Just to let Senator Flynn know, as Senator Kelleher has pointed out with regard to the wording, amendment No. 44 says "to insert" the term child pornography, whereas Senator Flynn wants it to say "to replace" the term. However, the Senator cannot change the amendment now. The option is either to withdraw the amendment for the moment or-----
Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Of course. I thank Senator Kelleher for pointing that out. I will withdraw the amendment-----
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
And reintroduce it at a later stage?
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Just to be clear, amendment No. 44 is being withdrawn. Is that correct?
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Pursuant to Standing Order No. 165. it is reported to the Seanad that the Title has been amended.
Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When is it proposed to take the next Stage?