Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before we commence, I remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also, on Report Stage, each non-Government amendment must be seconded.

We move to amendment No. 1 in the names of Senators Flynn, Black, Higgins and Ruane, which arises from Committee Stage proceedings.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 9, to delete “(Amendment)”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Today we are considering the main change in this important legislation. The Government supported our Bill on Committee Stage in June and we would love to have its support today to change the term "child pornography" and call it what it is, child sexual abuse by materials. In 2022, the then Minister, Deputy McEntee, said it might not be possible to have this Bill. I thank Corey O'Hara, Jessica Bray, and Colm Gannon in Australia for all their hard work on this legislation. From a conversation I had yesterday with the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, I am aware he has taken our legislation and made it his own. I thank him for that. Today is a win for our office and also for that of the Minister for justice. It is important I say that because, for a member of the Traveller community who cares about children's rights and calling something what it is, the amendment is like correcting a typographical error, if you will. It changes the term "child pornography" to call it what it is "child sexual abuse material".

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the discussion on the Bill itself?

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is on amendment No. 1.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the intent behind this Bill and I will speak plainly about why it matters, not just in legal terms, but in human ones. I welcome the decision to replace the term "child pornography" with "child sexual abuse material". This is not a cosmetic change; it is a moral correction. These are not images; they are evidence of crimes. They are not pornography; they are abuse. As such the language we use must reflect that truth. Survivors deserve legislation that names the harm as what it is.

Words alone are not enough, however. Section 9 deals with the legal continuity and while I understand the need to preserve prosecutions under the old terminology, I ask the Minister of State how this will be communicated to the Judiciary, the legal profession and those working on the front lines of justice. We cannot afford to have confusion in our courts. Guidance must be clear and issued promptly.

Section 12 gives a three-month lead-in time for training, which is welcome. What will that training involve? Will it be trauma informed? Will gardaí, prosecutors and judges be trained, not just in the terminology but in the implications for evidence handling and victim support? If we are serious about protecting children, we must be serious about how we train those charged with delivering justice.

I am glad of the consideration and maturity this Bill has shown in focusing not only on the language change but also on ensuring such a change will be enacted and made real. I commend the careful thought, time and consideration that has been given to ensuring the terminology change will not lead to any potential complications in ongoing legal cases and prosecutions. I also note the Bill's alignment with international obligations, particularly under the Lanzarote Convention and EU directive. That is important. I commend Senators Flynn, Higgins, Ruane and Black on their amendment No. 2 to expand the Long Title, which adds clarity and transparency and helps the public understand what this Bill is about. I fully support it.

While the Bill may be technical, its impacts are deeply human. It reframes how we speak about crimes against children and how we prosecute them and must be accompanied by renewed commitment to victim-centred justice, which puts survivors and not systems first.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I call the Minister of State to respond, I welcome the group from Conn Rangers to the Gallery. I hope they enjoy their visit today.

Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach and Senators. The amendment is not opposed. However, Senators are probably aware at this stage that the Government's approach to the Bill has changed and the Bill is now being opposed. I will expand a little on that. We are pleased to have the opportunity to speak about this Private Members' Bill sponsored by Senators Flynn, Black, Higgins and Ruane.I acknowledge the hard work and sustained effort the Senators have put into getting this Bill to Report Stage and engaging with us on the issues. This work was reflected in the amendments made on Committee Stage in June. When the Bill was introduced in February 2022 it was clear that the objective of updating the language in the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 was worth pursuing. It is important the language we use in legislation reflects the seriousness of the matters it addresses, particularly when it relates to serious offences against the most vulnerable people in our society.

The phrase "child pornography" was considered appropriate in 1998 to address the need to criminalise effectively sexual imagery of children. It is now widely recognised that this term does not accurately convey the true nature of the harm to victims. Any material that would meet the definition of “child pornography” in the 1998 Act is evidence of the sexual abuse of a child and it is appropriate that the Act should be amended to reflect this. The internationally accepted best practice term today is "child sexual abuse material". The Child Trafficking and Child Sexual Exploitation Material (Amendment) Bill 2022 seeks to bring the language used in legislation into line with our modern understanding of the true horror of child sexual abuse material and the damage caused to young lives by those who commit offences of this nature.

As Members will be aware by now, the Government has decided to oppose the Bill on Report Stage. This is a change to the previous position on the Bill. However, the Government recently published new legislation that will deal with this issue in a more targeted way and does not give rise to the concerns outlined during the debates in the Seanad.

During the Second Stage debate, the then Minister, Deputy James Browne, conveyed the Government's decision not to oppose the Bill. We took the same position again on Committee Stage in June this year, as the aims of the Bill are in line with Government policy and they would clearly be of benefit if they could be achieved. However, as we set out at the time, there are a number of problems with the proposals in the Bill. While these were generally not thought to be insurmountable, they represent significant legal risks. The proposed amendments would have a very broad reach across the Statute Book and would involve a large amount of complex and very detailed drafting work in order to deliver on the objective of removing and replacing every single reference to “child pornography” in every piece of legislation in force. The new Government legislation takes a different approach. Part 5 of the general scheme of the criminal law (sexual offences, domestic violence and international instruments) Bill 2025 will delete the terms “child pornography” and “pornographic performance” throughout the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 and replace them with “child sexual abuse material” and “child sexual abuse performance”, respectively. References elsewhere in statute will not be replaced. Instead, the legislation will provide for references in any enactment, legal proceedings or other document to “child pornography” to be construed as references to “child sexual abuse material”. This will ensure that appropriate language is used to describe these offences in legal proceedings and elsewhere. It also means that all new legislation related to this topic in the future will use the new language, so the old wording will disappear from the Statute Book as changes are made over time. This will allow for a more considered approach to the impact of targeted changes in more clearly defined contexts, for example, if the provisions for an offence are being amended.

While the amendments made on Committee Stage have improved the Bill, it would still require very substantial effort to get it to the point where it could be implemented. It would be no easy task to find and replace all the references, while still ensuring that the legal effect of provisions for offences and post-conviction reporting requirements are not undermined. Every reference would need to be separately evaluated to see what the impact of making the change would be and how best to mitigate it. A key risk here is that some references would be missed or that the impact of the changes might not be fully anticipated. This is a risk with any amendments to legislation, but the scale of the task magnifies the risk.

The proposed amendments to Long and Short Titles of legislation carry a risk to the legal certainty that is required in cross-references between enactments. This leads to a potential impact on the safety of prosecutions and the enforceability of post-conviction obligations, for example, the sex offenders register. When considering the approach to any new legislation that will amend the provisions for criminal offences, it is vital to ensure that we maintain the legislative coherence necessary for the offences to simultaneously remain fully enforceable, sufficiently fair to victims of crime and fully in line with the requirements of the Constitution.

The underlying aim behind the Bill is clearly worthwhile. The language we use in legislation affects our perceptions of the impact of offences on victims and influences how we respond. The Government legislation will replace the outdated language in the 1998 Act so that it reflects the true nature of the harm done to victims by offenders who make, possess or distribute child sexual abuse material. The provision for the current wording to be construed as “child sexual abuse material” will ensure that it is called out for what it is and for the harm it causes in legal documents and in court proceedings.

I am, therefore, satisfied that the approach being adopted in the Government legislation is the most appropriate way to bring the language in legislation for child sexual abuse material into line with best practice. Having said that, I commend the Senators on introducing the Bill in 2022 and keeping the issue live since then. This Bill initiated a debate on a legislative change that was very much needed and the debates that took place in this House around it have led to the introduction of the current Government proposal. I assure the Senators that their hard work on this Bill is acknowledged and duly appreciated.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is regrettable that the Minister of State will oppose this legislation. I was speaking to the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, yesterday evening and his words to me were, "You kept this Bill alive, you kept pushing and I expect you to nothing more when we have it in the Dáil". My wee girl was 12 weeks old when I come back from maternity leave. My then parliamentary assistant, Jessica Bray, and I sat down and decided this was extremely important legislation. The then Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, said it was not possible for us to change the words in the history books, and we totally accepted that. Speaking to the media yesterday, I asked why the Government was looking to reinvent the wheel and taking and owning the Civil Engagement Group's legislation. I am a member of the Traveller Community and somebody who wants to be a productive, progressive legislator in this House. It is a shame and a pity that my work is being taken. I appreciate and am grateful that it is being put into effect but I want to put on record that this came about from the good work of Jessica Bray, Corey O'Hara and Senators Black, Ruane and Higgins.

The Civil Engagement Group cares about this very much. We know that language can have a dramatic impact on any victim, especially someone from the Traveller Community. The Government's position is regrettable. I ask the Minister of State, if at all possible, to abstain in today's vote to allow my Bill to pass through the Houses and allow us to support the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, in bringing the Bill forward in the Dáil. Our two amendments are very simple. They propose to change the term "child pornography" to "child sexual abuse material”. As a mother of two young children, I would love for my two girls to look back and say, "Mammy was part of changing this" as part of the Civil Engagement Group.It is just like the occupied territories Bill and other important legislation that the Civil Engagement Group has brought forward. For many years, the Government has taken it as its own. I will support the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, in bringing this important legislation through. As a person who has worked really hard with colleagues over the last three and a half years, it is really important that I say this today. As Catherine Connolly rightly said in her campaign, it is very hard for women to stand up and own something. This is our legislation that the Government is taking as its own.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, lines 13 and 14, to delete all words from and including “ “Child” where it firstly occurs in line 13 down to and including line 14 and substitute the following:

“ “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.”.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sometimes I look at the Seanad as if we are guinea pigs. While the Government will now bring this legislation into the Dáil, taking the work we have done in our offices with the Civil Engagement Group, every other Member of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil here is now on record as having voted against changing the term "child pornography" to "child sexual abuse". It is really important that I say that out loud. I have great friends and colleagues in Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. In a few weeks the Minister will take our legislation and make it his own, which again is absolutely brilliant and important. However, for me as a woman who has worked really hard on this over the last three and a half years, I would have loved it to have gone through in our names as four women in the Civil Engagement Group.

Amendment No. 2 is a technical change. We are aware that the Minister of State will not support it and we will call a vote on it. We will again see Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Members voting against what we are trying to do.

Garret Kelleher (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus roimh an mBille atá os ár gcomhair inniu. I commend Senator Flynn and her colleagues in the Civil Engagement Group on the great work they have done on this. It is not a question of the Government taking their work, running with it and rebranding it. Senator Flynn earlier said that she would like her daughters to be proud of her and the change that she has made. The spirit of what is being proposed is being adequately dealt with. The soft reference to child pornography is seen as outdated and entirely inappropriate. That has been adequately addressed by the legislation being enacted. I would not accept the criticism of us as Government Senators. The work that Senator Flynn has done should be lauded and she should be congratulated on it. She is responsible and played a key role in this. I do not think it should be construed that anybody else is running to claim credit for the work she has done. This is a big win for the Civil Engagement Group. The Minister of State has articulated the reasons for the Government having the position it has. I again commend the Senator on her work to bring about this change.

Niall Collins (Limerick County, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Notwithstanding the change in the Government’s position on the Bill, which we are opposing, I am happy to speak further on the two amendments as they are evidence of the democratic process at work. The Senators have engaged on the issues that were outlined with their proposal and it is important to acknowledge the work they have put in to address them.I understand that the purpose of these two amendments to the Long Title is to correct an error and substitute the updated term "Child Sexual Abuse Material" in place of the wording that appeared in the original version of the Bill, which was "Child Sexual Exploitation Material". These changes are appropriate and correctly align with the Long Title and the purpose of the Bill.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State, the Department and the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. I know this will be changing after my conversation on the phone yesterday evening with the Minister, who thanked us in the Civil Engagement Group for our work.

I thank from the bottom of my heart my three colleagues in the Civil Engagement Group, and all of their personal assistants, as well, for their work in respect of this important legislation.

I get what Senator Kelleher said about it not being a question of the Government accepting our work, but, at the end of the day, we worked hard on this Bill for the past three and a half years. The Government would not even be thinking of this Bill if our work had not been done.

I repeat that this is not the first time for the Government to run with legislation that the Civil Engagement Group has drafted. Being a Traveller activist for many years, to a certain extent I do not care who does the work once it gets done. The day that the Minister brings this through the Dáil, I will be there and I will be supporting him from the bottom of my heart and thanking him on behalf of all of the victims of child sexual abuse in this country.

We are leaders in this area. I have people such as Ministers in Australia and Canada coming to me looking for our advice.

This comes under the UN Convention as well. It is something that the Government has to do. For us, as the Civil Engagement Group, just like with the occupied territories Bill and other legislation, it is still a win, if you want. However, it does not impact on me. I am 36 years of age. It impacts on survivors. It impacts on children of this country today.

From the bottom of my heart, I thank the Minister of State and the Department for bringing forward their own legislation, which came about as a result of the work of our group.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I put the question, I welcome the former US ambassador, Ms Cronin, back to Leinster House. Ms Cronin is on a visit from Massachusetts along with the University of Massachusetts students who are over here with University College Dublin doing a global leader programme. This is the students' first semester in college, I believe, so I am sure many of them will be heading to Copper Face Jacks later. I hope you see some of the students there. I would be very disappointed if the students are not in Copper Face Jacks on a Wednesday.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tomorrow morning at 9.30.