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 7 of 22.
“I would definitely like to hear a lot more about these separate places because we still have not ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, OPCAT, on the prevention of torture. Today, I am here talking about the Dóchas Centre. A couple of weeks ago, I was talking about the women's prison in Limerick. The conditions in the men's prisons are extraordinary. We had the Inspector of Prisons before the committee a couple of months ago and his contribution was jaw-dropping. He spoke about conditions in our prison system being tantamount to torture. We know recidivism rates are nearly seven out of ten in this country. Is it time to be more radical? What would a citizens' assembly on prisons and incarceration in this country look like? We should begin a full exploration of our prison system.”
“I appreciate the Minister has said that 26 extra spaces will be provided at the Dóchas Centre during his term but that same report that has not been released yet also highlighted the fact that the Garda National Immigration Bureau is showing up at overcrowded prisons to place people into them without any consultation with the prison guards. That is extraordinary and it is happening on the Minister's watch. These 26 extra spaces will not fix this. We need something far more radical and different.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. The figures are fairly stark. Last night, the Dóchas Centre was at 153% of its capacity and 29 women were sleeping on the floor. Can the Minister imagine what that does to a person's capacity for rehabilitation and sense of place in the world? I understand these people have committed crimes and that there are consequences to that but the consequences of placing people in these conditions go well beyond what is appropriate to the crime, impacting their families and their children.”
“Will the Minister respond to reports that women prisoners are being held in degrading and overcrowded conditions in the Dóchas Centre? Does the Government accept that continuing to rely on incarceration without sufficient investment in alternatives to custody risks simply warehousing vulnerable women in the prison system? The phrase "warehousing vulnerable women" is not something I have concocted myself. It was used in a report presented to the Minister's Department, which has yet to be released.”
“Has the Minister any plan at all to deal with the spate of arson attacks and vandalism happening at playgrounds the length and breadth of Dublin? This seems to be an issue that has increased in frequency and scale during his time as Minister for justice. Does he have any plan at all? I refer here to Diamond Park, Bridgefoot Street Park, St. Anne's Park and Sean Moore Park, which is in the Minister's constituency. These attacks are causing hundreds of thousands of euro worth of damage. I do not see the Department taking what is happening in any way seriously. Is this on the Minister's table? Is he engaging with local authorities about it? An Garda Síochána is asking local authorities to put private security in parks. This is madness.”
“Given the fact that I mentioned my own staff in our office, it would be remiss of me not to mention Lynn's parliamentary assistant, Robert Somerville, who is in the Gallery today and has also done amazing work in bringing this forward. Days like today show what can be achieved in politics with some perseverance. The capacity to work collaboratively across the Chamber and the fact that this is progressing to Third Stage is a reflection of nobody else's but Senator Ruane's heart, commitment and effort. The Government has referred to some amendments. Lots of them have merit in them and I look forward to engaging on them at the committee.”
“It is never not a privilege to stand in this Chamber. Ever single day I take a breath and realise how important the work is that happens here, but this evening was a genuine privilege. It was a real honour to be here to discuss an issue that too often went undiscussed. I thank the Ministers of State for their contributions and the Department officials for their engagement. I look forward to bringing it to Committee Stage alongside Senator Ruane. I thank Deputies Heneghan and Ward for their contributions. It was genuinely lovely to hear the kind words said about Senator Ruane and her passion and conviction for bringing a Bill of this importance to the Chamber.”
“Sometimes it is with legislation like this that I see the real work and the heart they bring to the work we are doing in the Dáil today. The fact that this Bill is passing Second Stage is a testament to their work, to the communities who told their personal stories and gave testimony and to the work and advocacy of Senator Ruane. I look forward to hearing the discussion.”
“It is an important and meaningful step forward. It will help people to access employment, families to build stability and communities to become stronger. It does not take away the hurt, but it recognises that people are more than their worst day. Many of us have heard it said that if you cannot do the time, you should not do the crime and I absolutely accept that. When crimes are committed, there are victims, there is hurt and restitution and justice are required. However, once the time is done, lives still have to be lived. They have to be rebuilt and today we can go some way towards making that process a little fairer on the scales of justice. Before I conclude, I thank the staff in my office, Ms Eleanor O'Donovan and Ms Caitlin Hennessy, who I give an awful time to.”
“This legislation simply recognises that change. It recognises the courage it takes for people to rebuild their lives and the role the State must play in supporting the process. I again acknowledge Senator Ruane’s leadership on this issue and the heart she brings to her advocacy, which is driven by constant community engagement and backed by reams of research. Her work has helped to bring this issue from the margins into the centre of policy discussion. I am genuinely proud to play a part in the legislation being brought forward today because, ultimately, this bill is about believing that people have a role to play in contributing to society and that the mistakes in people's past should not weigh them down forever. It is about ensuring that when the work is done, people can rebuild their lives.”
“It is something Senator Ruane has said before: just imagine the benefit to our social workers, social care teams, teachers and gardaí if we stopped standing in the way of people who have already done the work to change their lives, despite the wrongs of their past. If someone does the work to change their life, if they stay out of trouble and try to contribute positively to society, then surely the State should support that journey and not block it. Failing to support rehabilitation and keeping people on the margins of society benefits absolutely nobody. So many people who will benefit from this legislation committed relatively minor offences during really difficult periods in their lives and we know that people can and do change. We see the benefits of that in our communities every single day.”
“When I think about how lucky I am to hold the justice portfolio for my party - a responsibility I take enormously seriously - I often think about the people I have met not just in this role but in all the roles that have led me to the one I hold. I refer to people I have spoken to through prison visits; people who have come through the justice system; and people who have made enormous efforts to rebuild their lives after incredibly difficult circumstances. I often think about how incredibly valuable it would be if our systems were more informed by the lived experience of people who have actually been through them.”
“For so many people, the barriers created by our current system show up in very real ways, with people who are unable to apply for jobs, who are excluded from training or educational opportunites, or who are trying to participate in their community - volunteering, coaching sports teams and contributing in positive ways - but are held back by past mistakes that continue to follow them everywhere they try to go. As the Minister of State knows, I represent an area where we see so clearly how crime is inextricably linked with societal disadvantage. Issues like poverty, trauma and addiction are realities that shape people’s lives.”
“It introduces proportionate rehabilitative periods that better reflect the seriousness of the offence and the age of the person at the time. It extends eligibility for sentences that can qualify. It shortens rehabilitative periods for young people, recognising the importance of giving them a second chance to move forward. Importantly, it introduces protections so that people cannot be discriminated against in employment simply because they do not disclose a conviction that has been legally spent. These are practical, sensible reforms that bring Ireland closer to international best practice in rehabilitative justice. They recognise a basic truth - that if someone has served their sentence and stayed out of trouble for years afterwards, they deserve the opportunity to move forward with their lives.”
“Yet, the door to employment or opportunity can still be closed to them because of something they did years earlier and have sought to make amends for in every single year that has passed. As Senator Ruane has said so powerfully when speaking about this issue in the Seanad, these archaic laws mean that people who have not offended for years and who have done everything they can to rebuild their lives are still unable to move forward. That is not justice and it is not smart policy either. Rehabilitation in the criminal justice system has to really mean something in practice. This Bill broadens the range of convictions that can become spent while maintaining clear exclusions for serious offences. It removes the arbitrary cap on the number of convictions that can become spent.”
“Yet, the reality is that Ireland’s current spent convictions system is extremely narrow and conservative. Under the existing law, many people simply cannot qualify for a spent conviction at all. A single additional conviction can exclude someone permanently, regardless of how long ago those offences occurred or how dramatically their life has changed since. That means people who offended years or sometimes decades ago and who have since turned their lives around completely remain locked out of opportunities to give back. I refer to people who have gone back to education, overcome addiction, addressed their trauma and are trying to build stable lives for themselves and their families.”
“This legislation simply means that after a person has completed their sentence and lived for a sustained period without reoffending, they should not be forced to carry that conviction with them forever in every aspect of their lives. It does not erase the conviction. It does not rewrite history or heal the hurt for victims but it allows people, after demonstrating rehabilitation, to move forward, particularly when it comes to education, employment and general participation in society. The evidence is very clear. When people have access to employment, education and stability, reoffending drops and communities, by consequence, become safer. When people have access to employment, education and stability, reintegration into society is a societal value as a whole.”
“I acknowledge the Minister of State for supporting the progression of this legislation because I believe that consensus and coming to an agreement in the Chamber matters on areas of importance such as this. It matters to the thousands of people across the country who have done everything society has asked of them - people who have served their sentence, stayed out of trouble and worked to rebuild their lives but who continue to carry the weight of a past conviction long after they have moved on, rebuilt and repaid their debt to society. That is what this Bill seeks to address. At its heart, this legislation is about rehabilitation. It is about second chances and recognising that rehabilitation and recovery are both possible, and recognition of that is necessary from those who create legislation.”
“I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am very proud to stand here this evening to introduce the Criminal Justice (Rehabilitative Periods) Bill to the Dáil. This is legislation that has been championed for years, since 2018, by my friend and colleague in the Seanad, Senator Lynn Ruane. I want to acknowledge her work on this Bill from the outset. It is a Bill rooted in lived experience, in real communities and in the simple belief that people can change their lives. I also want to acknowledge the fact that we are seeing something that does not always happen in this Chamber - broad agreement from the Government that reform in this area is necessary and overdue.”
“What we actually need, rather than a patronising comment from the Government to encourage others to use the post office, is for the Government to take control of an issue such as post office infrastructure in Ireland, listen to the postmasters, who tell us the economic model is no longer viable, and provide incentives and intervention on behalf of the State. In the absence of a service such as the post office, the Government will not have a metric for the loss of a community amenity where people simply gather. It will just be gone, and that amenity will go with it. It will not be calculable in any sort of metric on a spreadsheet. It will be a loss of community. I would encourage that side of the House, the Government, to take a real interest in this, get a grip and, where necessary, provide the legislative changes or resources.”
“A collection of the community, people who are going about their day, will assemble at the post office, collect their payments and send their letters, and there is an abiding fear there that vital community resource will be taken away, whether I encourage them to use it or not. The post office service in Ireland is a hub of community. It is the same in Drumcondra, where an elderly population assembles at the parcel station every morning and the first thing they do is meet a friend and engage in communication. Whatever business they have to do after 10 a.m. starts before that. It is a vital hub. The fear and anxiety that that resource might be gone is palpable.”
“I listened to the opening contributions from the Government Members today and I thought to myself, my God, does the air feel lighter over on that side of the Chamber? The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, somebody who was vociferous in holding previous Governments to account on failures of local amenities, encouraged us in the Opposition to tell people to use their local post office, even encouraging us to use our local post office, and I thought to myself, I do not need to encourage the people of Phibsborough to use their local post office. Every morning, from the early hours, they assemble outside.”
“-----the question states, "codes of practice for live events, particularly live music events, to better facilitate live music performance; and if he will make a statement on the matter." The Minister went off on a tangent from the question.”
“I understand the night-time economy in Dublin will be different from that in a town but the means by which I put on an event does not necessarily have to be different. The paperwork should be the same. The processes should be the same. Local authorities absolutely have a role in this in terms of support but the development of regulation guidance should be nationally standardised.”
“I am talking about updating events' codes, which are 30 years outdated. The Minister referenced the Department of housing, which has responsibility for planning and the Department of enterprise. He said surely I would not wish to interfere with local authorities but that creates a gap for those who wish to put on live events. There are very significant discrepancies between holding an event in one county and holding an event in another county. Deputy O'Donovan is the Minister with responsibility for arts and culture and the funding authority. Surely he can see there is a need to have a national standardised process if you want to hold a live event. Surely it does not matter if you are holding it in Cork or Limerick. There should be a standardised process and standardised paperwork. Of course, I value the night-time economy in Dublin.”
“If I talked to the Department of justice, it would say the same. Events need leadership and I suppose we are asking the Minister to demonstrate leadership in relation to these live events' codes.”
“I appreciate that the Department oversees the funding of arts but there is a significant gap in the sense that the Department's budgets operate on a 2026 basis but the laws upon which these events occur date from 1996. That creates a problem. There is a gap in terms of regulation. If you have an event in Dublin, you have the same event in Galway and you have a similar event in Cork, you are dealing with different processes, different licensing and different paperwork. That creates gaps for people who only want to put on events. I appreciate the Minister is not the licensing body when it comes to events and that he is not the regulator when it comes to how these laws are developed but we need leadership here. If I talked to the Minister for housing, he would state this is not his role.”
“The national codes of practice governing events date from 1996 and 1998 and have not been formally updated in almost 30 years. This has left a situation where Dublin city, Cork, Galway, Kerry and Fingal local authorities have all introduced supplementary event guidance that have different criteria, documents needed and procedures. Will the Department push for the national code to be updated to support consistency in how we run live events nationally?”
“I reiterate that the screening procedures, as designed, are not designed to ensure early detection of human trafficking and modern slavery. There is also no clear referral pathway in the Bill in regard to the national referral mechanism. That is really important because I think something that has not really been understood yet in the 13 hours we have given to this Committee Stage is that this Bill comes into law on 12 June. The Minister does not yet have the multi-annual national referral mechanism set up for victims of trafficking. That is an extraordinary gap. I hope we will get to vote on this amendment so I will be quick.”
“The Minister might say that this is some sort of nonsense on my part, but I know what the opposite looks like, and it does not look like the type of system that is reflective of a republic that has learned the lessons for which it previously apologised for.”
“We are now standing in the Chamber processing potentially the most important legislation of certainly the next five years and it factors in detention. We are having a discussion about why should we believe a person when they come forward and say they were a victim of trafficking. We have talked about categories. What category of person does the Minister think would stand in front of another person and falsely say that they had been a victim of trafficking or modern slavery? I do not know that individual. I have not met that individual. I do want the Minister to legislate for that individual. I want to legislate for a humane and compassionate system in which we actually build trust into our legislation.”
“In the first instance, a victim of trafficking will be identified by their vulnerability assessment. That is provided for under the special reception conditions. I am surprised the Minister did not know that. Given the day that we had today in the Dáil when another State apology was made, I cannot help thinking of the words of Christine Buckley. I am sure most of us around the Chamber remember the incredible work of Christine Buckley, who shone a light into one of the darkest corners in this State and finally delivered a State apology for victims of institutional incarceration. Christine had a phrase which she used constantly: " I believe you before you open your mouth". That was Christine's line.”
“We add a simple amendment where, if an applicant is presumed to be or is identified as a victim of trafficking, they will not be compelled to go to a screening centre where they can be detained. The Minister said it is for a potential maximum of two days, but there is no guarantee of that. Two days for a person who has been a victim of a horror unimaginable to all of us is a lifetime. It compounds trauma. It is unnecessary by any measurement. I would be interested to hear the Minister's reason as to how he will not be supporting a simple amendment such as this.”
“Before the Minister came in, the Minister of State talked about being a true democrat and about the Government having a democratic right to legislate. Nobody is refuting that. However, if the Minister knocked at any door in this country, as all of us across the Chamber do, who would ask that a victim of trafficking be compelled to go to a screening centre? There is no obligation on that. Screening procedures are not designed to ensure early trafficking detection. There are no clear referral pathways in the Bill to the national referral mechanism framework to identify and support victims of human trafficking and modern slavery. None of that exists in the Bill at the moment.”
“I think about the apology the Taoiseach made today in the Chamber and other apologies that have been made. We have a gruesome history of institutional incarceration in this country. I am really apprehensive about how this Bill will legislate not only for continuation but also for enhancement. We are legislating, in the subsection I am seeking to strike out, for the detention of people who have committed no crime at all. Our history demands that we tread more cautiously than we are at this point, which is why I am seeking to strike out the subsection.”
“Striking out the subsection would mean officers cannot direct people with lawful residency permission to attend screening centres on the basis of vague, undefined grounds. It also cuts off the path to grounds for arrest and detention. By definition, the people in question are not international protection applicants and as such, the State has no business arresting and detaining them under this legislation. It looks like illegitimate arrest and detention on the grounds of racial profiling. I am very cautious about how we legislate for detention in this country. It will be the defining part of this Bill. We are steamrolling through something that has monumental consequences and, while not looking to the future, we do not seem to be particularly reflective about our past.”
“I move amendment No. 21: In page 32, to delete lines 14 to 18. In the first instance, I will speak about amendment No. 21. Let me quote the subsection of the Bill I am seeking to remove so we will have a sense of it. It provides: Where a member of An Garda Síochána, an immigration officer or an officer of the Minister has reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the interests of public policy or national security for an applicant to whom paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4) applies to be subject to the obligation referred to in subsection (1) , the member or officer may give the applicant a direction referred to in subsection (2) . The direction refers to detaining and screening.”
“I move amendment No. 20: In page 28, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(14) The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the carrying out of procedures in respect of a minor under this Part, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Eurodac Regulation.”.”
“I fundamentally believe in State reception centres. Best practice, as laid out in the Catherine Day report, was to have seven. That was updated to nine. At the moment, we have one, and that one was dubiously purchased. While we are so far away from that, I do not want to enshrine the means by which we can keep privatising this system and seeing it as the norm and something to be managed rather than something we are seeking to eradicate, as we should. I have reservations about placing a cap on the amount of money paid per individual. I do not know exactly what that cap would be. It would be useful to have a sense of that. I understand Sinn Féin had previously said €71 but that is not contained in the amendment in front of me. I have reservations. I am interested in hearing the Minister of State's response before we decide how to vote.”
“We voted against the last amendment because we feared it would enshrine privatisation in the system. We make no apologies for that. We are dealing with a Bill that enshrines the detention of children in the system. When we talk about introducing a per person cap, we present the image that asylum seekers are somehow being kept in the lap of luxury. There is rightfully a lot of talk about profiteering. From the foundation of the State, it has always monetised other people's poverty and oppression. However, we are not talking about the fact that thousands of men are given sleeping bags and sent to the canal. That is one of my problems with the conversation that is going on at the moment. We are reiterating the failure of a badly designed State system. I do not want to enshrine the means by which that can continue.”
“I am not opposed to this amendment at all. My point is probably more relevant to the next amendment, but heaven knows if we will ever get there. Of course, we should have transparency in relation to contracts, but that should be the lowest bar. Our position is that we should be moving towards State-owned reception centres. I fear that supporting an amendment such as this enshrines privatisation into the system, which is something I absolutely could not support.”
“Too often in this Chamber over the past six years, we have come in and spoken about SNA pay, their evaluation, the model from which they are accredited and how they are treated in classrooms. SNAs do an invaluable job. We need to start valuing them.”
“Inclusion is done best when it is included as a staffing model. Right now, teachers are managing classes that are larger and more complex than the structure was ever designed to support. Special needs assistants have become a pressure valve for a wider failure to invest in adequate teacher supply and class sizes. If we are being truly honest, this was not chaos caused by any school. It was chaos created by a system that in no way matches the reality of a classroom. If Government wishes to calm this down it must begin by stopping any conversation about narrowing supports and start rebuilding the architecture of our classrooms properly. If the Government keeps trying to squeeze the system without strengthening it, the only people who will pay a price will be our children. We need to start valuing SNAs.”
“It would be completely wrong to reframe this as some form of simple communication problem. This is a systematic policy failure. Successive governments have designed a model that narrows how care is defined. It signed off on it and allowed letters to be issued. When the schools and the parents rightfully reacted, suddenly everyone seemed to be taken by surprise. Absolutely nothing about this was surprising. You cannot tighten SNA thresholds in overcrowded classrooms and pretend that nothing else will be impacted. You cannot remove complex need from the special education teacher allocation model and not expect the pressure to land somewhere else. You cannot speak about inclusion while refusing to deal with adult to child ratios in our classrooms. Inclusion is never just a slogan.”
“In the north inner city, however, many patients present with the health profile of a 70-year-old at the age of 50 but the system is not funded in that way. Equality is giving everyone the same. Equity is recognising that some communities start further back. The north Dublin GP training programme started in 2011 with Dr. Austin O'Carroll and it is a model that works. Deputy Rice has given 20 points on what could improve our GP care system across the country. We hope the Minister of State will take it on.”
“It tried to close down the GP Care for All system in Summerhill. The residents, who have all the issues we have laid out before, and the doctors had to take placards and signs and stand outside their practice and had to come to Dáil Éireann, just to have the basic necessity of a GP care service maintained and not have the added anxiety they may lose it. We are asking them to firefight deprivation without the tools and now we are asking them to firefight health inequality. This is why the Social Democrats are calling for a DEIS for GP scheme, deprivation-weighted capitation rates and a cap on list sizes, so doctors in areas like Dublin Central are resourced for the reality they are working in. Our current funding model recognises age but it does not recognise deprivation. Capitation increases at the age of 70.”
“I have visited the GP Care for All practice in Summerhill many times over the years. When people visit the practice, which was founded by Dr. Austin O’Carroll, they will find communities of people who have grown up and spent their whole life in the inner city. They will find the Roma community and people who have come from other parts of the world. There is a diverse community there, all with a particular need that is clearly under-served. In the north inner city, we have known for years that people develop chronic illness earlier, sometimes more than a decade earlier compared to more affluent parts of the city. This includes earlier cases of heart disease, respiratory illness and diabetes, as well as a lower life expectancy. This is not about genetics; it is about systemic inequality. What did the State do in response?”
“I thank Deputy Rice for the dedication and vision he has brought to this most important issue. There is a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing effective doctor care within our system. To give context, the national benchmark is one GP per 1,759 people. In my constituency of Dublin Central, it is dramatically higher. In the north inner city, for example, it is one GP for every 3,525 people. In Cabra-Glasnevin, it is one GP for every 3,060 people. In my constituency, particularly in the north inner city part of it, there are a plethora of issues we often discuss, no different to many other constituencies. There is poverty, deprivation and inequality. When looking at the GP-to-person ratio, it cannot be denied that a structural inequity is also built in.”
“Each of us who call for State reception centres should be able to provide for ones that may exist in our own communities. They should not just say they might exist elsewhere. If the Minister would like, I am happy to give some suggestions on where they would fit in, because we have an obligation and that is never going to go away. Migration is always going to happen in different trends, be that through climate migration or people fleeing from wars that may take place in future. However, we have responsibilities here. We all have a responsibility as parliamentarians to stand true to our values when these things come to pass.”
“In this whole conversation, we have heard no talk of the Catherine Day report on State-run reception centres, with the exception of Deputy Mac Lochlainn, who referenced them. I hope the proposer might clarify this, but I am conscious that I do not want to see a preposition that the privatised model will be the one that goes forward. The privatised model has absolutely failed us but, within that, we also have to accept there will always be people who come here in search of sanctuary. People will always need to be housed with dignity, care and compassion. Before I decide on how I am going to vote on this amendment, could the Minister tell me if the Catherine Day report is still Government policy? Where are our State reception centres?”