Gary Gannon
Dublin Central · Social Democrats · Ireland
“I will talk about that in a couple of minutes but before I do I want to come back to some of the things the Minister of State said in his opening speech, particularly the last paragraph.”
“It will create a scenario where vulnerable people will simply not be able to get up their street for potentially three days because there will be a multitude of different providers steaming up these streets, which were never created for such large vehicles.”
“Those things should not be in competition with each other. The remunicipalisation of waste is going to cost money. That is a simple fact, but public services often should operate at a loss.”
“He engaged with the evidence and with stakeholders and came to the same determination, namely, that what we have at present for waste management services, not only in Dublin but nationally, is no longer tolerable. It has led to a system that is clearly not efficient or not suitable for the purpose intended.”
“Does the Tánaiste recognise the scale of the chaos in our criminal justice system at the moment? Thousands of cases have been adjourned. Victims will await justice. Backlogs are building. We now have habeas corpus cases taking place in the High Court. The Minister referenced my flowery language.”
“I want to acknowledge Deputy Sherlock for her work in bringing forward this Bill. We in the Social Democrats will be supporting it. It is a shame that the Minister of State is not willing to engage further than to simply vote it down on the promise that a review will be released in an unspecified time.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,100 lines we hold for Gary Gannon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 22.
“The recent spell of good weather has brought into sharp relief just how few free, accessible public spaces there are for people to gather and enjoy free of charge. We have all seen the scenes on Drury Street, packed with people and with a gorgeous atmosphere, but one that is ultimately unsustainable. Business owners should not be placed in the impossible situation of asking people to not sit down outside their premises. That responsibility cannot lay with people who are simply trying to keep their doors open. We have placed a burden on commercial spaces to act as substitutes for public ones. We are a city with no shortage of derelict sites, vacant lands and underused laneways. What is lacking is imagination and the political will to take these spaces and reimagine them as part of a shared civic life.”
“We can have the kind of outdoor culture we associate with many other cities, if not the weather. This legislation enjoys broad support across the Chamber and across the city because it speaks to something simple and human: the right for people to gather, congregate, sit down and just enjoy each others' company over food and a drink. This legislation has broad support for that purpose but we must go further. Let us use this as an opportunity to have a conversation about what can make our city streets more welcoming, more inclusive and safer. What else can we do to create a city that truly belongs to the people who use it? There needs to be more recognition that the design of our cities and streets can bring people together or push them apart.”
“I welcome the extension of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and I will support it. However, we need to be honest here. This legislation has been extended multiple times and we must move beyond temporary measures. It is time to make it permanent. I sat on the Dublin City Council at the same time as the Minister, and to think then that we would be in the Dáil discussing benches. This should be an issue for councils. We have all seen the positive impact that outdoor dining has had on our city. Capel Street stands as a testament to what can be achieved when we open our public spaces to people. What was once known as a transit route has been made more vibrant, energetic and inviting. There is no question that outdoor dining has played a vital role in that transformation.”
“Cabra is a place that has experienced all the hardship of deprivation, poverty and social exclusion, but it has not received the same level of public attention, probably as a consequence of public representatives who have not given enough voice to it. We want that to be recognised. We want the request for a family resource centre to be based in evidence, awareness and acknowledgement that there is a community here looking to step up and see itself as part of that State infrastructure, to confront the challenges which it recognises but for which also it sees the solutions.”
“I know the opening of five new family resource centres will be a competitive application. I am certainly not trying to lobby any more than using my position as a public representative for an area to give a voice. I ask that when this consideration is being made, the Department looks at the statistics. The deprivation level in Cabra is really pronounced. It is more than probably exists in many other parts of the country. Because Cabra is around 2 km away from the city centre, it is often lost in conversations. When we talk about crime in the city centre, we are more likely to focus on the parts we pass through, like O'Connell Street.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her substantial contribution and recognition of Cabra, and her personal awareness of how change-positive the family resource centres can be for a community, particularly communities that, of their own volition, recognise the need for them. Cabra is an area with such an incredible history. The GAA team there is a real focal point for the community. There is generational poverty that can only be confronted through proper State intervention and a collation of services. It is exactly as the Minister of State describes. It is something which the communities, of their own volition, have mobilised for and about which they have lobbied me and other public representatives for the area to make the case. I am delighted to be able to do so today.”
“That could be a family resource centre that can provide care for children, after-school supports and emotional-based supports for parents. Family resource centres have done amazing work. I am blessed with one of them on Hill Street. I have talked to the family resource centres around the country. Cabra could really benefit from one and I encourage the Minister of State to take this issue seriously.”
“What we are looking for is acknowledgement, awareness and a sense of reality that potentially none of us knew about beforehand, with a sense of recognition that this should be considered and that support for a family resource centre where it is needed most. I understand completely that there will be significant levels of campaigning and lobbying. Every community will have its own stories of why it is in need of a family resource centre. Cabra is a real traditional working-class heartland in a part of Dublin that most people know exists but probably have not really walked through. It is full of amazing families and local businesses. It has been inundated with people who have bought houses in Cabra recently and there is a real fusion of different peoples. We need an anchor point of recognition.”
“Every primary school in Cabra is DEIS, and local services from youth work to school completion to sports programmes are crying out for some sort of central hub that can be a kind of space within Cabra that can start to confront the levels of deprivation and poverty. Conducting my own research using the census data, nearly a quarter of the current population of Cabra West has not gone past primary level education. There is a clear need for additional opportunities and equity in this area. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, for taking this matter today. I understand the Minister of State cannot commit to a family resource centre today.”
“Every single household in Cabra West A and B is classed as well below the average or worse with regard to deprivation. Families are facing precarious housing and isolation. Parents of kids with additional needs have a lack of safe spaces. People have to walk past visible drug dealing and there are increases in crime. I attended the Cabra community needs launch only a few weeks ago, where a young mother of two children with additional needs described her utter desperation at a lack of services in the area for her children. One in three residents in Cabra is under the age of 30 and nearly 20% are under the age of 19, but there are next to no services for young people.”
“They found some of the following research, information from which I will read for the Minister of State. Nearly 50% of residents in the area live in some level of disadvantage. Since 2016, there has been a 55% increase in people in the Cabra area classed as extremely disadvantaged. That is not just a statistic. That is thousands of lives at risk of falling through the cracks. When we talk about poverty or disadvantage, what we are actually talking about in many instances is what people are asked to go without. We know what factors are contributing to poverty. It is a lack of a warm coat. It is trauma that is replicated through generations and it is children being born into that environment. In Cabra West, the situation is even more urgent.”
“I want to raise an issue I have raised on previous occasions, namely, the community I am very proud to represent, one that has its challenges but is always flourishing and has a deep history. It is a place full of strong families and deep roots, but it is a community that can often be overlooked and is struggling right now. The residents of Cabra have asked, in recognition not just of the problems but the opportunities that exist in the community, that a family resource centre be established. That is the issue I want to raise with the Minister of State. In 2024, a group of local organisations came together to advocate for a family resource centre for Cabra. It completed a full needs analysis, backed by research from the Dublin Northwest Partnership.”
“It is not a promise that I want to play politics with because this issue is fundamental to the basic necessity of parents and guardians the length and breadth of the country. Páistecare is a good, innovative solution that is worth pursuing.”
“The stories I hear every day from communities in Drumcondra and Glasnevin show that childcare is not available. In recognition of that fact, we asked Dublin City Council recently to do an audit of buildings that may be available for childcare or after-school provision. We hear so much about dereliction and empty buildings in central Dublin. We never hear anything innovative in terms of how we could reanimate those buildings to create a real sense of public good. There is no public good more important than the allocation of childcare provision. Dublin City Council simply said that was not within its remit. In the lead-up to the election, the Government promised that childcare fees would be capped at €200 a month. The Government has failed to deliver upon that promise.”
“At Mountjoy Square Park, it is an incredible community after-school project that does immense work. I pay tribute to the staff there. The building they are asked to work in is something that will stay with me for a long time. The walls were mouldy and cracked and could not hold furniture. The pathways outside were broken all the way alongside it. The back door was just unusable. Of the children receiving great care there, many were in homeless accommodation on Gardiner Street. Other children had come in through our international protection system. I looked at and touched the walls of that building and I could not for the life of me understand how a State could enable a situation where children would be cared for in an environment such as that, if care even exists.”
“Every Deputy who stands up will have a story to tell about his or her own constituency and the absence of effective childcare or aftercare provision, precisely because this insidious issue affects the means by which parents organise their days, get into work and ensure that their children are looked after in a manner that taken for granted in most other jurisdictions. It is difficult to know where to begin when detailing the systematic failures that brought us to this point. We are talking about a sector that is as fundamental to a child's development as primary and secondary education, yet it has been allowed to become almost entirely privatised, where it is even available. I was asked to visit an after-school facility in my constituency of Dublin Central about two weeks ago.”
“The horror upon horror that has been inflicted actually renders all this fairly meaningless. A small part of the world is being obliterated. It has been obliterated and that has been allowed to go unchallenged by the European Union. Words are not even close to being enough. Therefore, I will not be celebrating Europe Day today. We are blanketed in a cloak of shame because of what is occurring in Gaza by Israel which has been enabled by the US and by Europe.”
“It is very difficult to celebrate what is, ostensibly, a great peace project that was built out of the belief that "never again" should mean "never again" given that member states are transferring arms to Israel. We watch as the populations in Gaza and the West Bank are obliterated but we stay quiet. I refer to the collective quietness across the EU. We say that we have been a loud voice. However, that is not even close to being good enough. At a stage where genocide is occurring and ethnic cleansing is now been spoken about openly, being a loud voice is no longer good enough. We need to be people who are screaming at every level, going to the EU and actually demanding that it stays true to the principles by which it has enacted clauses, because otherwise, does that not make us complicit?”
“I remember the debate when all of us were to be careful because that had not been clarified yet. In the intervening period, it has bombed every hospital. Every hospital has been obliterated. Israel has targeted UN workers and journalists - you cannot get a journalist into Gaza at the minute for the very simple reason of the horror being inflicted there - and still the EU does not recognise that humanitarian clauses have been potentially breached. We will continue to argue and advocate for the enactment of the occupied territories Bill in this Chamber. We are a member of the EU which has a trade agreement with built-in humanitarian clauses that are being denied. It is very difficult to celebrate that.”
“We must therefore use our platform not just to ask "are we not great?" and say "look how much we have benefited", but also to talk about the hideous forms of oppression and violence being inflicted upon another people. Article 2 of the EU-Israel trade agreement has humanitarian clauses built into it. Following pressure from the Opposition, the former Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, wrote to Ursula von der Leyen to ask if Israel was in breach of Article 2 of that agreement. More than 19 months have passed, and Ursula von der Leyen still has not responded to that message. She has not shown the courtesy or decency to respond to the leader of a country, and a fellow member of the European People's Party, on humanitarian clauses being breached. In the past, we discussed in this Chamber whether Israel could actually target a hospital.”
“I do not feel like celebrating Europe Day today for reasons that have been outlined very clearly for more than 19 months now. That is not to say that I do not appreciate Europe or the role it has played in the development of Ireland. I am often reminded of a quote by John McGahern, who said that Ireland was an agrarian society right up to the mid-20th century and then almost went straight to the 21st century. I understand the role Europe has played in Ireland and the privileges it has given me, but I also understand the importance of trying to avoid hypocrisy where necessary. Too often when we sit here and talk about benefits without actually understanding, discussing or pointing to what can be fixed, it leaves us in that hypocritical space. As we speak, a genocidal form of ethnic cleansing is being inflicted upon a people.”
“There have been 19 months of devastation and evil on a scale not witnessed in many centuries. We have watched annihilation being afflicted upon Gaza. We now have the calls from Netanyahu and those who follow him for ethnic cleansing of the people of Gaza. We have heard the words of the Taoiseach and the talk of the Tánaiste last week. We need to know when there is going to be action and consequence. Can we have statements immediately on the situation in Gaza and can we finally understand what Ireland is actually going to do beyond words?”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 15, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “34FA. Where an application for declaration has been made before or during a trial of action and costs, a judge must not strike out a claim and appeal under section 34E if the claimant satisfies the judge that— (a) the claim is likely to prevail at trial, and (b) the harm suffered or likely to be suffered by the claimant as a result of the defendant’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in dismissing the case before trial.”.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 14, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “Stay of proceedings 34EA. (1) Upon an application made under section 34E by a defendant to a proceeding, no further step may be taken in the proceeding by any party until the application, including any appeal against the application, has been finally disposed of. (2) Unless a judge orders otherwise, the claimant is not permitted to amend his or her pleadings in the proceeding— (a) in order to prevent an order under this Act dismissing the proceeding, or (b) if the proceeding is dismissed under the Act, in order to continue the proceeding.”.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 14, to delete lines 6 to 14 and substitute the following: “34E. (1)Where a defendant in defamation proceedings relating to his or her engagement in public participation makes an application to the court, in accordance with law, to strike out the claim as being an abusive lawsuit against public participation.”.”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 12, to delete all words from and including “but” in lines 13 down to and including “participation” in 14 and substitute the following: “have the effect of preventing, restricting or penalising public participation”. I thank Deputy Carthy and others. The Bill says lawsuits must have the main purpose of stopping public participation to be considered abusive. My proposed change is that if the lawsuit "has the effect" of stopping or punishing public participation, even if that was not the original intent, it is considered abusive.”
“Similarly, the Social Democrats will oppose this section. Again, this is about the principle of having trials by jury and the word "defending". I have listened for the past hour and a half. We have read the research in the Oireachtas reports and by the various experts. Nobody has yet laid out any evidence to show why this would make the system better. I heard how it would make it cheaper, but that certainly does not mean it would be a better system. I would like to register my opposition.”
“Do we not have within this Chamber the principle of conscience, which should come before the principle of compromise? Otherwise, what are we doing here?”
“I thank the Minister for being forthright in his explanation of how his views have not so much evolved but probably remained the exact same. I took from his contribution that this is not something he believes in good conscience. He said he was bound by the principles of compromise. If I am to understand this, Fine Gael got 20.8% of the first preference vote in the last general election. I do not see the Lowry group here to defend the Minister or his Fine Gael colleagues. If we are to believe that this House is in any way the result of the will of the people, does it not worry us that one in five of the elected Members of this House are determining a very significant change in our court system to remove juries? We are removing the majority of a jury and justifying that by the principle of compromise. In and of itself, that is outlandish.”
“No compelling reasons to eliminate jury trials in defamation cases have been presented and backed up by evidence. It is better to let recent reforms take effect and monitor outcomes before removing that fundamental right. Preserving jury trials safeguards the democratic process. It is important in any democracy to build public trust in the judicial system.”
“One of the Government's justifications is the unpredictability of awards. On the surface, this might seem like a fair enough argument but it does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, very few jury awards have been overturned on appeal. We also have the Supreme Court case which has offered very clear guidelines in this area. Speeding up trials is another justification but there are no examples of this. In Britain, when similar legislation was introduced in 1998 in personal injuries cases, the opposite was true. There is no evidence that jury trials are more costly. Judge-only trials have also been lengthy and jury verdicts are harder to appeal, often resulting in faster resolutions. Jury trials have long protected civil rights. The recent Supreme Court changes have addressed many of the Government's concerns.”
“This is of major importance and should be protected when it comes to jury trials. Juries ensure fairness and reduce bias. The fact that a cross-section of society is making a determination on the standing of a person is important, especially in cases involving powerful entities. Juries offer a check on the erosion of civil rights and support citizens' involvement in justice, just like their involvement in politics when them to go out and vote. Jury trials apply in other civil rights cases involving questions of liberty, free speech, reputation and property and singling out defamation creates inconsistency and unfairness within legal practice. Jury trials for defamation are still allowed in the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and much of Australia. Abolishing them would make Ireland an outlier.”
“That is certainly some thing we would like to see changed and enhanced but it is not the case at the moment. Juries provide protection against judicial overreach and ensure fair and balanced decisions, especially in high-stakes cases. Consideration should be given to alternatives to abolishing juries. We could address court delays by hiring more judges. Ireland has the lowest number of judges per capita in Europe. We could also consider hybrid models such as those that exist in New Zealand and British Columbia, where jury trials can be requested and approved by a judge. The Bill removes the long-standing right to a jury trial in defamation cases. This right dates back to the Magna Carta, which is more than 800 years old. It cuts ordinary citizens out of the judicial process and undermines democratic participation in legal decision-making.”
“There is much to welcome in the legislation as proposed. While we support many of the anti-SLAPP measures that are included, like others, we in the Social Democrats recoil at the absence of juries within the courts system. Juries provide the judgment of a person's peers. Juries have a sense of public confidence and democratic principles built into them by their very nature. Juries reflect public values and real-world experience. They enhance trust in the justice system and represent a core element of democratic justice - the people's justice. We do not agree with removing juries and simply having the judgment of members of the Judiciary. While judges play an absolutely vital role, in many instances they are not reflective of society as a whole when it comes to their demographic profile.”
“Is it humane and accessible and does it provide a real path forward for ordinary people, not just corporations or those who can afford teams of advisers? This moment is an opportunity to reflect on what insolvency proceedings should look like in a republic that claims to value dignity, justice and equality. If we support this motion, let it be part of a broader commitment, one in which reform does not stop at compliance but goes further into fairness. I support closer European co-operation but not at the cost of turning away from the lived experience of those in financial distress at home. Let us make sure that this is not just a bureaucratic tick-box exercise but a step towards a system that works for all, not just for those who know how to work it.”
“If we are to support the opt-in, as the Labour Party will in this case, it must be done with full awareness of the gaps in access and fairness that persist. We should not allow this to become a tool used more effectively by the wealthy than it can by the vulnerable. I also caution that insolvency laws must never become a convenient mechanism to dissolve responsibility, be it financial, ethical or social. When creditors are protected workers must be protected too. When insolvency allows debts to be cleared safeguards must be in place to ensure it is not done at the expense of wages and pensions or with disruption to communities. While Ireland is aligning our framework with Europe, we should take the opportunity to ask whether our domestic insolvency system is fit for purpose.”
“In this country, we have seen how financial systems can bend under pressure. We have been destroyed by it. We have seen individuals use foreign jurisdictions to resolve debts under more favourable conditions, something that is not available to most people struggling under the same weight. It is one thing to reform insolvency laws to facilitate smoother procedures across Europe but it is another ensure that reform benefits everyone equally. Let us not pretend that access to cross-border insolvency protections is evenly distributed. Those with knowledge, means and connections are far more likely to benefit than a small business owner or family who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments.”
“I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the motion on Ireland's opt-in to the EU's amending regulation on insolvency proceedings. This might appear to be a technical matter and just another adjustment to European legal frameworks, but to those of us who believe the law should first and foremost serve people, it is anything but abstract. Insolvency law, at its core, governs what happens when things fall apart, a business collapses, debts cannot be paid and livelihood is on the line. This is the system we rely on to provide order, fairness and, hopefully, justice. While I recognise and agree with the intention of the motion to streamline cross-border insolvency, prevent jurisdiction shopping and protect creditors, where necessary, we should also consider who it actually benefits and who might be overlooked.”
“It should not take parents having to consistently call public meetings, advocate and learn to become legal professionals in their own right just so that they can vindicate a child's right. It should not have to be that hard. Ultimately, what we are talking about is simply access to school places. This should be a great crusade. I cannot understand the scenario where budget time will come around in a couple of months and people will be talking about tax cuts at a time when we do not have school places or therapists. This needs to be the great goal, and we are all want the Minister working rapidly in respect of it.”
“I do not want to individualise it and focus on a particular person - I do not for one second believe that is the case - but I want to understand the culture in which these decisions have been made and allowed to fester for decades, to the point where children do not have school places. Four hundred new special classes were announced for next year but already we know they will not be enough if the Department does not come with the therapists, the sensory supports and a trained and supported workforce. If these classes are located miles from people's homes, this will force children into making long, exhausting commutes. We would not accept this in mainstream education; we should not accept it in this instance either. It should not take a media campaign. It should not take parents having to sleep on the pavement outside Dáil Éireann.”
“Why, 20 years after the EPSEN Act was passed, are we still waiting for key parts to be commenced? There is no mystery here. We know how many children are born each year. We know how many have additional needs. We know the supports they require, and still matters are left until the very last minute. Every year, a scramble for school places throws schools and parents into crisis. It is a repetition of trauma, a pursuit merely for the basic need of obtaining a school place. This is not about a lack of information. Clearly, that is not the case. It is about a lack of planning, foresight, urgency and political will.”
“I thank Labour for bringing forward this important motion. I bid a huge welcome to the parents and guardians who are in the Gallery, many of whom I recognise from my community. There also people who have had to travel to the Dáil previously and who have slept outside the offices of the Department merely to vindicate their child's rights. Each time I see those very same faces, hear their stories and feel their pain, the question I am repeatedly obliged to ask is "Why does it have to be so difficult?" Why does a parent have to sleep outside the Department of Education to get their child a school place? Why would a school that is told it needs an SNA be blocked from hiring one? Why are teachers and SNAs expected to do more with less in antiquated classrooms that were never designed to cater for those with complex needs?”
“Since then, we have received OPLA advice in September and worked through several drafts, taking inputs from experts in the area and from victim families, most importantly. We believe this Bill is ready and do not see the need for further delay. By legislative standards, it is not complex and it leaves room for court discretion. It is constitutional and long overdue. The Department's time would be better spent addressing the many other recommendations in the 2023 report and avoiding reinvention. We would welcome the Government's support to use this Bill to correct this anomaly in the law.”
“The draft programme for Government published in January includes the following text on page 121: Examine proposals to remove guardianship rights from those convicted of killing their partners or a parent of their child as part of the ongoing work to implement appropriate recommendations from the Study on Familicide and Domestic and Family Violence Death Reviews. I know that the Government is seeking an amendment to the Guardianship of Infants Act to implement Valerie's Law, which will remove guardianship rights from one parent who kills another. However, we need to simply move to enacting legislation and avoid damaging public confidence in the responsiveness of the legislative process. My colleague, Deputy Holly Cairns, has been working on this Bill since July 2024.”
“That substantial and valuable report came out four years later, in 2023, and contained the following recommendation among almost 200 others: It is therefore recommended that the Child and Family Relationships Act 2015, or other relevant legislation, must be amended to ensure that a parent convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the other parent does not retain guardianship of the surviving child or children. In 2024, the victims family consultation meeting at the Department of Justice on A Study on Familicide & Domestic and Family Violence Death Reviews received the Government guardianship rights paper. The conclusion to the Government guardianship rights paper simply restates the 2023 recommendation.”
“The DPP pressing a charge of manslaughter or murder can be taken into account at a policy level when dealing with childcare matters prior to a conviction. A similar law called Jade's Law was enacted in England and Wales in 2024. Clodagh Hawe was murdered in 2016. Her sister and mother met the then Minister for Justice, Charlie Flanagan, in 2019, and the Government then started working on A Study on Familicide & Domestic and Family Violence Death Reviews.”
“By giving discretion to the courts, the Bill allows for the edge cases where suspension of a guardianship would not be in the child's best interests. An example is where a mother acts in self-defence but still receives a conviction of manslaughter. It is also worth noting that the suspension of guardianship simply removes powers and rights from the perpetrator. It is still open to the child or their carers to choose to reach out to the perpetrator at any time. This Bill relies on a criminal verdict being obtained, and that takes time - in the order of years. It is tempting to try to construct a mechanism that would suspend guardianship in advance of a verdict, but that is purposely rejected as it could introduce fatal flaws and complexity.”
“That may not be a large number, but the effect on the victim's family is immense. The prospect of having guardianship suspended will also have a potential deterrent effect and add to the consequences of the crimes of manslaughter or murder. We know the names of Valerie French, Nadine Lott, Jasmine McMonagle and too many others. Many of these women had children, whose names are rightfully not publicly known. We owe it to these women to remove the killers from their children's lives. Although the examples given are women, the same applies for men like the late Jason Corbett. By putting this Bill into law, the winners are abused children and the losers are convicted killers. This is a legislative change without associated monetary cost. The OPLA has assured us that the suspension of guardianship is constitutionally possible.”
“This Bill remedies that anomaly by giving the courts the power to suspend the guardianship. The Bill has been referred to in the press as Valerie's Law, after the late Valerie French, a mother of three young children who was murdered by her husband in 2019. Killing a mother is child abuse, yet their abuser retains powers over them. This has caused major difficulties for those trying to care for children in this situation and adds to the burden on the victim's family. Research shows that the best outcomes for children in this terrible situation are to be placed with the victim's family. The perpetrator typically uses his or her powers to frustrate that. In Ireland, research by the Child Care Law Reporting Project shows that this affects on average seven children in the country every year.”
“I move: That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to provide for the suspension of the powers, responsibilities and entitlements of guardianship in certain circumstances and for that purpose to amend the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 and to provide for related matters. The Social Democrats wish to introduce this Bill for the simple reason that there exists what the Minister for Justice has described as an anomaly in law whereby a parent who has been convicted of unlawfully killing the other parent of a child retains his or her guardianship of that child. Retention of guardianship in this context means that the convicted person has to be informed of the child's situation, must be consulted in major decisions to be taken for the child and can influence their placement.”