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 2 of 22.
“The Istanbul Convention is built around prevention, protection, prosecution and co-ordinated policy. The framework is there but the delivery is not. Of course we will support the motion but supporting the convention means more than signing international agreements or participating fully at EU level. It means making sure when a woman finally finds the courage to escape violence, the State is standing there to catch her and help her. Until no woman is turned away from a refuge because there is no bed and no woman has to choose between abuse and homelessness, and until every survivor can access the protection this convention promises, our work is far from done. Ireland has the resources; we need the political will to match.”
“Women's Aid recorded over 62,000 disclosures of domestic abuse last year, the highest number in its history. It recorded over 11,000 disclosures involving coercive control. We know abuse does not end when relationships end, with almost one in three women seeking support reporting abuse by a former partner. This is happening in every county, city and community in Ireland. While I welcome proposals being examined to allow gardaí to remove perpetrators from their home in high-risk situations, we have to recognise emergency powers alone will never be enough. Women need somewhere safe to go. They need housing, refuge spaces, legal supports that work, a family law system that understands coercive control and, above all, a State that treats this as the emergency it is.”
“Every one of these women had probably reached the most frightening moment of her life. She had made the decision to leave and asked the State for help. The answer far too often was and is, "There is no room." Can we all take a minute to stop and imagine how that would feel? Can Deputies imagine being one of these women desperate to get themselves and their children to safety, only to hear days later about record-breaking Exchequer returns and budget surpluses when they have been told there is no room for them to flee from the domestic violence and potential threat to the lives of them and their children? Can they imagine the anger and devastation of living in a country we are told is rich, yet which cannot provide the most basic protection when a life may depend on it? That should shame us all.”
“I was going to address the fact that we heard about yet another deeply distressing case in the last few days, with the murder of Adina Costantin in Portlaoise. That murder meant we had reached the same number of women killed by a current or former partner as during the whole of last year. Today, we exceeded that figure. That should horrify every one of us and force us to confront the fact that this crisis is not easing but is, in fact, getting worse. When women make the incredibly brave decision to leave, they are met with a country where 93% of domestic violence refuges are already full, where almost 1,900 women were turned away from refuge accommodation in just six months last year because there was nowhere to go, and which still falls dramatically short of the refuge spaces required under the very convention we are discussing.”
“The Social Democrats support the motion. Ireland should absolutely opt in to this Council decision. The Istanbul Convention is one of the most important international agreements we have on preventing violence against women, and domestic violence, and Ireland should fully participate in its EU ratification. While it is important to reaffirm our commitment to the convention, we also have to ask ourselves the much more uncomfortable question of whether we are actually living up to it. The reality facing women in Ireland tells a very different story. Yesterday, Eleanor in my office and I started to prepare the speech I am delivering. Since then, another woman has lost her life and my speech is now outdated.”
“It is at a level where it has to be an extensive national priority to prevent this, to convict those who do it and to stop a network of young people being dragged into this through violence and coercion.”
“The Criminal Justice (Engagement of Children in Criminal Activity) Act 2024 was welcome but there are flaws in the legislation in that it has the expectation built in that a child would be the witness to their own coercion. Too often we do not see children and young people who are being coerced into this as victims even by the very fact that we talked about the recurring offences. We separate ourselves from the fact that these children are literally being coerced into crime. Sometimes we assume it is through money or financial gain but it is often through the threat of violence to them or their parents. This is a national problem. It extends beyond urban areas into more rural parts. Much of the anecdotal evidence we have on the level of drug-related intimidation in the State involves children being used to carry out the violence.”
“Even today we are talking about young people on scramblers, which is very dangerous and we need to cut it out, but a lot of those young people have been coerced into using those scramblers to sell drugs. Only 17 charges have been made so far under Fagin's law. What are we going to do to improve how we go after people who are targeting children?”
“I can hear the Minister of State's passion for this area. The problem is that in 2017 or 2018 the Greentown project, in its first national survey, found that at any one time over 1,000 children in the State were being coerced into crime. Between 2018 and 2026, every metric has got worse. I have to assume the coercion of children into crime has got worse. The Greentown project has good outcomes but it is very small and geographically based. I would like to see a national programme that is funded, seeks to prioritise prevention and recognises that the factors that make a child vulnerable to be coerced into crime are often the conditions in which they are born, with poverty foremost among them.”
“It is appropriate that we move on from discussing the successes of CAB and the evolution of how we target the drugs gangs. That has consequences in terms of how the gangs have tried to innovate. One callous activity they have engaged in is the coercion of children into crime. I do not believe eight- and nine-year-olds were being used as drug smugglers 30 years ago. Today, the prevalence of that is substantial. I want to talk about the coercion of children into crime.”
“However, that is the moment of intervention when we can actually prevent the follow-on hurt that is coming from a recidivism rate that is extraordinarily high because the addictions are not being dealt with in there. I can reference any number of reports that talk about the need for addiction specialist nurses, the most recent being the Crowe report on prison healthcare in 2022. We need to reflect on the absence of those specific specialists in our prisons.”
“The Minister might want to check the programme for Government in terms of the plans in relation to that, but okay. We have a profound problem when it comes to our prisons. I do not doubt for a second that there are some success stories, but that is by no means the norm. That is actually a failure of opportunity because we talk about the people going into prison for absolute reasons, but while they are there, there is an opportunity to ensure that when they come out, they do not continue the hurt that led them there in the first place. That does require intensive treatments for addiction. At the moment in our prisons, clearly, that is not being met. I do not doubt the work the Minister mentioned by Merchants Quay Ireland.”
“I do not doubt for a second that Merchants Quay Ireland is doing good work within our prisons, but its representatives have also said continuously that, actually, the supports available are not commensurate with the needs they are meeting while they are in there. There are also any number of reports that call for specialist addiction nurses going in, which are different from general practice nurses because the skill level is different. Comprehensive addiction assessments, and management of withdrawal and medication, can be offered by an addiction nurse. All of these are specialist skills.”
“I am correct in saying that the programme for Government includes a commitment to recruit addiction nurses. The last addiction nurses left in 2016. We have a problem in our prisons. People are going in there with addictions. Over 70% of the prison population, or 4,000 people, entered prison with some form of addiction. The Minister knows our recidivism rates. Almost exactly seven out of ten people who go into prison will reoffend within three years. A large part of that is precisely because the addictions with which they went into prison are being compounded, in many instances, and there are certainly no recovery options.”
“Back to the fighting. I want to speak to him about our prison services and the fact that we do not have any specialist dedicated addiction nurses within the Prison Service, despite over 70% of the prison population having addiction needs.”
“I commend the Minister on his visit to the Alfie Byrne Road on Friday. It was a source of great annoyance to me that he left such a great impression on the lads down there, so well done to him on that.”
“The section of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 that criminalises possession for personal use actually prevents people from coming forward to seek treatment. To ensure there would be no public consumption of drugs, we recommend clearly that council by-laws be passed to enable gardaí to move people on in that scenario. Also, we recommend that if they do not move on, public order measures would enable the Garda to arrest them. I assure the Minister that neither I nor anybody else on the committee would enable or support a situation where public consumption of drugs would even potentially increase.”
“Does the Minister honestly believe I would stand over a policy decision that would enable an increase in open drug dealing? Does he actually believe that a committee that had representation from members of all parties, including his own and including incredible members such as Deputy Brabazon, whose views differ from mine on this, and Senator Mary Fitzpatrick, would do that? We examined the matter and what we established quite clearly was that the Oregon model failed because wraparound services were not present there. It was the same with the British Columbia model. What we also established was that we have one of the highest numbers of drug-related deaths in the EU. We have several provisions in the Statute Book – sections 15, 22 and 23 – that enable the Garda to go after those who are dealing the drugs.”
“I represent the inner city. We examined the Oregon model in detail. What we found there was that Oregon failed on a number of fronts, but for one, it did not have the assets that we have. We use the word “therefore” in our recommendation when we acknowledge the potential for substance misuse or increases on the street. We state we should empower local authorities to have by-laws similar to those on the use of alcohol on the streets. We recognised that after our scrutiny and we would empower the Garda to go further than what Oregon or any other jurisdiction, including Lisbon, was able to include.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire for his response. I was coming in here for a fight, but he has disarmed me somewhat with his response. What he has in his written reply is different from what he has said in that he said we went beyond the recommendations of the citizens’ assembly. I wanted to read the recommendation of the citizens’ assembly as presented on 24 October: The Citizens' Assembly has recommended that the State pivots from the status quo to a comprehensive health-led response to drugs, including decriminalisation for people found in possession of drugs for personal use. The details of how decriminalisation can be legislated for is a question that the Oireachtas should determine following detailed legal scrutiny. That is what the citizens' assembly states on its website. We also considered the matter and were quite fearful.”
“I want to ask the Minister about the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Drugs Use, particularly as they refer to the decriminalisation of drug use. I had not intended to ask this question so quickly following the release of the report, but it is important to seek clarification on some statements the Minister made in the media. I am looking forward to addressing them because I see that they are also in the response that has been sent to me right now.”
“As a community that is trying desperately to add to its area, support our local independent businesses, and engage with the parts of the community that are really investing in improving Stoneybatter and Phibsborough, it is so frustrating that Dublin City Council can just tell people to take something down and then it is gone. We know what comes afterwards.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his response and his understanding of the situation. There is a frustration. We spend so much time talking vacancy and dereliction in Dublin Central that the potential for losing two businesses that have added to the vibrancy and improved the aesthetic quality is grating to the point that it is nonsensical. For a small independent cafe like Stay With Us, if it is to make an appeal to An Coimisiún Pleanála, that is going to cost over €4,000. It is a small independent cafe that is being held to the same appeals standard as a large company. It just does not make sense.”
“As they have not met planning standards, the whole business has to go, rather than Dublin City Council simply working with them to help them get to the right side of planning. I am raising this to the Chamber with Deputy Ennis not because we want the Minister of State to intervene but to raise the issue and see what we can do to work better.”
“These businesses then invested in their community. One built a little café with wooden seats, where every morning in Phibsborough, you will see people going in, bringing their dogs and sitting there. It is a lovely little space, and it absolutely adds to the community. The Cowtown Café, just off Stoneybatter, also took a place that was previously the site of dumping and antisocial behaviour, and invested in it. It now has little café stalls and saunas there. Inexplicably, Dublin City Council has told them that they have to remove the infrastructure they have built, which has added to the community. I am dealing with issues in Dublin 7 where there is an absence of enforcement at very significant conservation buildings, yet these two businesses have been told they are outside the planning.”
“I thank the Minister of State for joining us. Let me be clear. I am not looking for the State to intervene when it comes to planning decisions. That is not our purpose in coming in here today. However, we are conscious that the senior members of Government have made observations publicly on issues in Dublin city centre, most pointedly the dereliction and vacancy. Deputy Ennis and I want to bring forward some very significant anomalies and contradictions in planning, particularly in the Dublin 7 area, that have an impact on local businesses. I want to focus on two businesses in particular, the Cowtown Market and the Stay With Us café in Dublin 7. Before they opened, their locations were the site of dumping and antisocial behaviour. They were places where the aesthetic quality left a lot to be desired.”
“Tomorrow, in the Taoiseach's home city of Cork, every single solicitor is removing themselves from the legal aid scheme. Imagine that. It is not just Cork. It is Dublin and all over the country. Thousands of cases have had to be adjourned, undoubtedly leaving so many victims of crime awaiting justice. This flat fee proposal that has been brought in is causing chaos. Solicitors have rightfully said that there has been a level of consultation. The analysis which the Department released is deeply flawed and that will be discussed in the justice committee shortly.”
“Last week, I had a meeting with two individuals, Sharon Lynn and Bryan Gallagher, which left a lasting impression on me. Both lost siblings individually in one-punch attacks. What they are asking for is structured sentencing guidelines for manslaughter cases, but also a national strategy on male-on-male violence. Is that something the Taoiseach's Department has considered?”
“Last year, the Minister said that he believed in the Peart majority report. I would disagree but where are we in terms of the actual legislation? There is an element of basic cowardice here that we continue to renew the Special Criminal Court without justifying the inadequacies of the Government and State as to why we cannot protect ourselves, or what we are bringing in with regard to reform. I would like to see that soon.”
“I do not doubt for a second that some of the people who come before the court, recently and potentially in the future, are vicious criminals who would try to undermine our Judiciary and try to intimidate jurors and their families. All of that is absolutely true but nobody stops and tells me why we do not have the capacity within the State to prescribe the types of protections there are in other jurisdictions. We are an outlier. The Irish State is an outlier in the sense that we do not provide safety for our jurors. In Italy they have dealt with this with the Mafia. Lots of other jurisdictions have dealt with this. Ireland is really only comparable to Denmark at the moment. Everywhere else seems to make allowances in exceptional cases but we are saying that this exception is now becoming the norm.”
“It is actually a concession; it concedes ground to these people who try to actively instil fear in communities like mine and yours that we do not believe the ordinary courts of this State are adequate or the State has a monopoly on violence for which we protect jurors within the State. That is a sad indictment on all of us. Every year this House renews these powers, we acknowledge inadequacy. This is no longer 1972 or the darkest year of the Troubles; it is 2026. The people who have been responsible for our judicial system the entire time are solely Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. The report laid before the House today tells us how many cases were tried in Special Criminal Courts last year and the year before. One of the things it does not tell us is why the Special Criminal Court was deemed the appropriate court to try these individuals.”
“That is not hyperbole; it is provided for in Article 38.3.1 of the Constitution which allows for juryless courts in the scenario that "ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order." That is effectively what we do every single year. We show up and say our ordinary courts are inadequate for the administration of justice. That should shame us all. As we talk about the various reforms and reviews such as the Hederman review in 2002 and the Peart minority and majority review, we describe the belief that our courts are not good enough to try the people who appear before the Special Criminal Court. That should be something we all take stock of. It is not a form of strength or a tough-on-crime position to try the worst of the worst in the Special Criminal Court.”
“This is the seventh year I have showed up to vote for something which I profoundly disagree with. I believe fully in a trial by jury. Ordinary citizens should be able to sit in judgment. When the State accuses somebody of a serious crime, one of the strongest protections we possess is the right to be judged by our peers. Yet, seven years in a row I have voted for something I disagree with. This year and last year, I have also been very conscious that if I was to take a stand and say I will not vote for it this time, I do not believe this Government and this State have the capacity to project jurors. That is a sad indictment of the system and a continuity of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments which have left us showing up and reaffirming a collective belief that the ordinary courts of this State are inadequate.”
“There have been 2,600 incidences of drug-related intimidation in the past two years and arson attacks have increased manyfold. We are not getting to grips with a problem that used to be under the radar but about which we now simply do not talk. This directive lacks proper parliamentary oversight. The problems it is trying to solve will not be addressed unless the Government actually takes the issues seriously.”
“Inevitably, somebody will say we need an initiative like the inner-city task force for Ballymun, Blanchardstown or Limerick, rather than accepting this is a national problem that requires manifold interventions. I consistently hear that the Minister at the Department of justice is doing the best work in the country. When I look at the outcomes, I just do not see it. I will vote for this motion on the EU directive because co-operation matters. Scrutiny also matters, however, and it has not been applied in this instance. I genuinely do not believe the Department of justice is taking any degree of interest in the people who hold the firearms and the people who are coercing children and young people in this country into carrying out the type of intimidation of which we have been seeing the evidence since 2001.”
“Yet, as I walk home via O'Connell Street and Dorset Street, the level of coercion of children into criminality I see there is something many of us have not seen in our lifetime. This directive does not counter that but nor have I seen anything from the Government that does so. Drug-related intimidation is no longer happening only in inner-city communities. It is a nationwide problem. Rural and farm-based communities are experiencing it. The drug-related intimidation and violence engagement, DRIVE, programme is funded to the tune of some €240,000 each year. The level of drug-related intimidation far exceeds what that funding could possibly do. We have a multitude of disparate but better organised gangs emerging every single week in this country.”
“The objective must not simply be to increase penalties for the sake of it. The objective must be to reduce firearms trafficking, reduce gun violence and improve public safety. What bothers me most about a discussion like this in the Chamber specifically about firearms offences is that we very rarely discuss one of the major issues occurring across Irish society right now, which is the pernicious nature of gang violence and all the tentacles that surround it. The Minister of State represents Dublin South-Central, which is a constituency very similar to mine. Surely she must see the level of child grooming into criminality that is happening. My eyes almost rolled back into my head a couple of months ago when the Minister talked about the fact we have not had a death by firearms as a consequence of gangland criminality in the past year.”
“Is the benefit primarily to do with information sharing, tracing firearms, intelligence co-operation or offences relating to the illicit manufacture of 3D-printed weapons, or is there a more substantive gap that has not yet been outlined to the House? Those questions are not arguments against the directive. They are arguments for proper scrutiny and they are questions that should have been debated at committee level. The directive contains provisions on minimum and maximum penalties and a sentencing framework. If we are introducing new sentencing approaches, they should be justified by facts, evidence and a clear understanding of what actually reduces organised crime. Too often in politics, there is a temptation to assume that longer sentences automatically produce better outcomes. The evidence internationally is far more mixed.”
“The central question I have for the Minister of State and the Government she represents is a simple one. What specific gaps in Irish law does this directive close? When we examine our existing legislation, we find that Ireland already has some of the strongest firearm laws in Europe. We already provide for severe penalties for unlawful possession of firearms and significant penalties where firearms are possessed in suspicious circumstances. We already provide for sentences up to and including life imprisonment for the most serious firearm offences. If we are being asked to opt in to this measure, the Government should be able to clearly identify where the deficiencies lie but I did not hear that addressed in the Minister of State's contribution.”
“Rather, it is a significant policy decision that means accepting that European legislation will shape part of our criminal justice framework. That should always be done carefully, deliberately and on the basis of evidence, particularly at a time when security concerns across Europe are becoming increasingly more complex. We are living through a period of significant geopolitical instability. We have seen organised crime become more sophisticated, growing security concerns across the Continent, conflict on Europe's borders and increasing pressure on law enforcement agencies in many member states. In that environment, it is entirely reasonable that the EU would seek to strengthen co-operation against firearms trafficking. It it equally reasonable for this House to ask questions.”
“We have major concerns about how the Department of justice, led by the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, is continuously undermining democratic and parliamentary norms in this House. We will support the measure because we believe it is an important one but we do so while highlighting the failure of the Department once again to apply the required level of scrutiny. The EU's Regulatory Scrutiny Board has itself raised concerns about the level of analysis applied to this proposal, with a report noting that it was moving through the system without the level of detailed examination such a significant criminal justice measure deserves. That concern is very well founded. When Ireland chooses to opt in to a justice and home affairs measure, it is not a routine administrative exercise.”
“The Social Democrats will support this motion because we want Ireland to opt in to the EU directive on combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences. We do so because firearms trafficking, by its very nature, is a cross-border criminal activity. Organised criminal networks do not respect borders. The firearms used by criminal gangs across the country do not magically appear here. They are trafficked across jurisdictions, moved through criminal supply chains and exploited by organised crime groups operating across Europe. We accept that co-operation between member states is essential, as is information sharing between law enforcement agencies to enable them to work together effectively. However, supporting the opt-in should not mean suspending scrutiny.”
“A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I come in? I support the amendment and will be very brief. The Minister has said a couple of times that there is nothing to stop the family having the right to make a request-----”
“It is an important moment to acknowledge the courage and commitment of Mr. David French who has travelled here for every committee hearing and briefing out of love for his sister Valerie and to ensure the passage of the Bill we are discussing today. It is an important moment to take stock to reflect on that courage. Too often, we see people who have to place the trauma of their loss or absence alongside the courage needed to get up and go out and make things better for those who come after them. It is an important point to mention. I will be supporting Deputy Carthy's amendment. We should acknowledge that Tusla is a reluctant litigant in this regard and there should be space for families to ensure they can seek accountability when perhaps Tusla does not see the purpose of that should the case arise.”
“I have a brief question. In terms of the annual report which is catered for in section 20, what should this House expect from the first annual report? In 12 months’ time, when the first annual report is delivered, what information should we expect? Presumably we understand that the office may evolve. There was reference to 30 staff when we were at the committee and it seems to be 20 now, along with a budget of €2.8 million. If this moves into the type of behemoth we imagine it would be, what should we expect from that first report?”
“Last week, the annulment of historical convictions for homosexual men was lumped in with the same Bill dealing with whether rape counselling notes should be allowed in trials. Today, we had to submit amendments for the Third Stage of a Bill before Second Stage had even concluded. In the current environment in which this Chamber operates, this is an audacious amendment that simply asks for the means to allow us to scrutinise whether a new institution is actually working. I imagine that the amendment will be declined, which is a shame and shows how things have developed in this Chamber.”
“The audacity of such an amendment from Deputy Carthy. Imagine wanting an annual report on a brand new structure, a brand new office, that we are told will probably have 300,000 requests and will try to hold to account some of the largest corporations in the world that may be liable to fines of 2% of their annual turnover. This democratic Chamber, which is supposedly one of accountability where we hold account, is simply asking for an annual report and somehow I assume that will not be the case. I do not blame to Minister of State at all for this, but there is an arrogance that emanates from the Department of justice. It shows itself in the number of parliamentary questions that are declined and how it deals with Bills of considerable substance.”
“Do we think they will not have to deal with requests that come under the heading of “democratic backsliding from some states”? They will. If we do not have an application of our own values within those decision-making processes, we become complicit in them. That is why I will be supporting this amendment. That is why I will vote against a Bill which I mostly believe in. The rushed nature, lack of structure and inability to budget for the unforeseen makes this impossible for me to vote for.”
“What we are doing here is creating a criminal justice international co-operation office in Ireland that is going to be different from what is in most other European states because of the prevalence here of the tech companies, including the Googles, Metas, LinkedIns and TikToks, which have headquarters here. To that very important office, we are allocating a budget of €2.8 million and 30 staff, who will be sent from another part of the Department of justice. The consequences of the decisions those staff will have to make with their very small budget are enormous. Do we think it is unimaginable that at some point they will have to make a determination on surveillance abuses or the use of spyware against journalists or Opposition politicians?”
“I wish the Minister of State well in her new role. I am sure she will find it to be very fast-moving and to have many different parts. We are finding that sometimes the hurry does not result in things operating at their most effective. Anyone who walked down to the District Court, the Central Criminal Court or the High Court today would have seen evidence of that. This Bill is very important. That we do not have rule of law or an amendment built in at national level is very important to note. There is a huge responsibility on Ireland specifically.”