Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 84.
“I am not going to agree to the amendments because I believe it is necessary and appropriate that prison officers should have access to mechanisms for defending themselves. I say that notwithstanding the fact that when I have gone to all the prisons, one of the things that does not surprise me but is very noticeable is the very good relationship that exists between prisoners and prison officers. People who have not been into prisons may be surprised by that, but there is an excellent relationship that is predominantly one of trust and engagement between prisoners, prison officers and prison staff. We do not see many attacks on prison officers by prisoners. Regrettably, since I have become Minister, there have been attacks upon them.”
“Work being done on estates by the Irish Prison Service is done very quickly and professionally. Recently, I went to Castlerea where I saw the new buildings that have already been built in the grove with the money I got authority for in May 2025. It is a small development but it has been constructed within one year. There will be further construction starting in Cloverhill soon. I believe we will see an increase in the prison estate and its capacity. That is essential to ensure prisoners are not exposed to overcrowding. The amendments that have been put down by Senator Ruane - amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 - seek to stop the legislation that I am introducing from enabling prison officers to have incapacitant spray.”
“Every time I go, I meet the staff and the governors and I always make sure I also meet the prisoners. As the Senator knows, there is a lot of good work going on in Irish prisons at present. It is not a simple narrative because, unquestionably, there is overcrowding in Irish prisons. I am responsible for ending that and seeking to reduce it. Last year, I got authority from the Government to invest up to €500 million in further prison construction. I do not believe all our solutions involve building more prisons. However, when you look at how our population has risen in the last ten to 15 years, it is clear that our prison capacity has not increased correspondingly. The main reason we have overcrowding today is because we never increased capacity.”
“I thank Senators for the amendments they put down on Committee Stage, for which I am here today and back again tomorrow. I thank Senator Ruane for her amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which seek to amend section 4 of the Bill by deleting the amendments I am proposing to the Firearms Act, which refer to the use and capacity of the Irish prison service to have incapacitant spray. At the outset, I acknowledge that Senator Ruane has consistently displayed an interest in penal matters and has very good knowledge of the pressures our prisons are under. She has worked very well in the area of penal reform. Since I became Minister, I have visited every prison in the country, except the Midlands Prison. I have visited 12 of the 13 prisons, and I am going to go back to start visiting them again.”
“There are a number of technical amendments to Part 15, which provides for the disregard scheme that we discussed previously, to address a procedural lacuna arising in the context of the provisions of sections 60 and 61, which relate to the revoking of a disregard.”
“I will introduce an amendment to remove section 44, which provides that more than one DNA profile may be generated in relation to missing persons, unknown persons and unknown deceased persons. I have been advised that section 44 is unnecessary because it is permissible to generate more than one profile in such cases without explicit provision being made. I will also introduce an amendment to section 69, which adds the Courts Service to schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, to add the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, to the schedule, thereby making it a specified body for the purposes of sections 262 to 270, inclusive. I also propose to add An Garda Síochána, which at present is a specified body but only in relation to staff. I propose to remove that reference being restricted to staff.”
“As mentioned previously in the Dáil, I have been giving consideration to commencement. I intend to amend section 1(4) to enable further provisions in the Bill to come into operation on enactment rather than by order. I will introduce an amendment to replace the current section 6, which amends section 67 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936, to address an issue with the provision whereby it does not take account of certain previous amendments to section 67 of the Act. I will also introduce an amendment to replace the current section 17, which amends the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, to provide that where a person is convicted of any indictable offence, character evidence for sentencing purposes must be given on oath or by affidavit. This is to address a number of drafting issues with the current provision.”
“I will also introduce an amendment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984 to provide a statutory basis for the admissibility as certificate evidence in criminal proceedings of the results of presumptive drug tests administered by members of the Garda and a consequential amendment to the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Act 2014. I will introduce an amendment to the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act to empower members of the Garda to require a person to remove a face covering in particular circumstances where the person is wearing a face covering to evade liability or identification for the purpose of having committed a criminal offence and an amendment of section 14 of the Bill which provides for commencement of the Bill to enable certain provisions to commence on enactment rather than by ministerial order.”
“These include the insertion of a new Part into the Bill to provide an enabling basis for remote hearings and the use of electronic documents in criminal proceedings and international co-operation proceedings, and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020, and the Criminal Justice (Perjury and Related Offences) Act 2021. They also include the insertion of a new Part into the Bill to extend the State’s passenger name record data regime to intra-EU flights to align the law in this area with a recent judgement of the CJEU and to provide for the designation of an independent authority to approve the disclosure of PNR data held by the Irish passenger information unit and to revoke the European Union (Passenger Name Record Data) Regulations 2018.”
“I thank the Seanad for welcoming me to the Seanad this afternoon to debate the proposed amendments to the Criminal Law, Civil Law and Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2026. I appreciate the engagement that Senators have had with the Bill to date, as evidenced by the amendments which various Senators have put forward, and I look forward to constructive discussion on those amendments along with those I am moving on behalf of the Government. Before we debate the proposed amendments, with the Cathaoirleach's permission, I wish to briefly signal a number of other amendments which are currently at an advanced stage of drafting in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel which I intend to bring forward on Report Stage.”
“When you look at all European Union directives and regulations, we will all still be subject to GDPR and the fundamental rights set out in the charter, so I am satisfied that fundamental rights will be protected.”
“I am introducing further judicial posts, so I believe there will be sufficient judicial resources to deal with this, and that is also the case with An Garda Síochána. However, it is true to say when you are setting up a new statutory entity and it will be reliant on requests coming from other countries, there will be a certain amount of uncertainty as to the level of workload. It is something that will have to be kept under constant review. Senator Murphy raised the issue of the protection of fundamental rights. I am satisfied fundamental rights are protected in respect of this. There has to be reciprocity in terms of criminality. It is not like we can receive a request for something that is not a crime in Ireland.”
“The set-up costs are around €2.8 million, but we believe, in terms of what we are facing from the outset, that we will have enough resources to deal with it. If we need further resources, we are fortunate to be in a financial position where we can devote further resources to it, but we believe the calculation that is given to it at present is sufficient. Senator Murphy is correct in noting there will also be additional roles given to the new statutory agency in respect of European investigation orders. Senator Murphy also inquired about what will be the impact on the workload on the courts. I am ensuring the courts are resourced fully to administer justice efficiently and effectively. This year saw funding increase by 8% to €216 million. The judges are well resourced.”
“I agree with the Senator that it would be preferable that, when it comes to the transposition of directives, we try to transpose them in a more timely and expedient fashion. Senator Murphy mentioned that the number of requests to Ireland could be very high. They could be, and the reason for that is because we have so many large tech companies here. The purpose of this is for other member states to request e-evidence, evidence that is relevant to criminal offences in their jurisdiction. Obviously, a lot of tech companies that list their address as Ireland will be the entities that will be subject to those requests and they will come to the new statutory office we are setting up. Senator Murphy also asked about resources in respect of it.”
“It is something that generates challenges but is a huge advantage for the country, the economy and the taxes we generate from it as well as the services we can support through the taxation that comes with it. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir Kelleher arís as a óráid. Bhí mé ag éisteacht go cúramach. Senator Murphy also raised a number of points. It is fair to say we are under pressure here with the timeline. There is a legitimate criticism to what he said, that it should have been enacted sooner. He asked why it is being rushed. Part of the reason is because my priority has been other domestic legislation, much of which we saw earlier such as the guardianship of infants legislation or the domestic register of judgements legislation. I will not claim all responsibility for the delay but it is important that we get it enacted.”
“I thank Senators for their contributions, which I have listened to carefully. Senator Gallagher spoke about how this legislation is very important for Ireland’s reputation and the position we have as a major European centre for the tech sector. That is correct and it is important that we try to transpose the directive as soon as possible. As we know, the regulation comes into effect from the middle of August, so it is important for Ireland’s reputation. When you look at it objectively, very many other countries in the European Union would give a huge amount to be in Ireland’s position of attracting very large multinational tech companies to the country. We have them here, which is something we should, and I know we do, value.”
“Section 67 provides that summary proceedings for an offence may be brought and prosecuted by the director. Section 68 provides that summary proceedings for an offence under this Bill may be instituted at any time within two years. Section 69 provides for liability for a body corporate. Section 70 provides that, where a person is convicted of an offence, the court shall order the person to pay the director any costs incurred. The provisions of the Bill have been carefully drafted. It is important to enhance Ireland's position as a European hub for digital regulation and as a trusted partner in international justice. Data protection rules and principles will apply to the mechanism of European production orders. The regulation reiterates the requirement of necessity and proportionality, setting out the key safeguards in this area.”
“Section 58 provides that the Minister may make regulations relating to the conduct of proceedings. Section 59 provides that a payment made by a service provider goes to the Exchequer. Section 60 sets out the circumstances in which a person is not eligible for appointment or disqualified from holding office as an adjudication officer. Section 61 provides that a person cannot also be a Member of the Oireachtas or the local authority. Section 62 provides for the nomination by the director of persons for appointment as adjudication officers. Section 63 provides for the appointment by the Minister of adjudication officers. Section 64 provides that an adjudication officer is independent. Section 65 provides that the Minister can make regulations. Section 66 provides that the director may require staff to assist adjudication officers.”
“Section 51 provides that an adjudication officer must send the director and the service provider concerned a written notice of decision to impose a penalty. Section 52 sets out the circumstances in which a decision of a financial penalty takes effect. Section 53 provides that a service provider may appeal. Section 54 provides that, where no appeal is made, the director shall make an application in a summary manner to the Circuit Court, and section 55 sets out procedural and other matters concerning that. Section 56 provides that an adjudication officer may, before making a decision as to a contravention or the imposition of a financial penalty under section 49, refer a question of law to the High Court. Section 57 provides that an adjudication officer may award the costs of proceedings against the service provider or director.”
“Section 45 provides for the definition of terms used in Chapter 5 of Part 5. Section 46 provides that, for the purpose of an undertaking, the chief adjudication officer shall assign an adjudication officer to conduct the adjudication. Section 47 provides that service providers shall not be liable to be penalised twice. Section 48 sets out the actions an adjudication officer shall take. Section 49 provides that an adjudication officer shall make a decision on the balance of probabilities. Section 50 sets out that the maximum financial penalty that can be imposed on a service provider can be no greater than 2% of the total world annual turnover of the service provider in the preceding financial year.”
“Section 38 provides that the director may request that a service provider provide a compliance report to enable the director to confirm that the service provider is complying. Section 39 provides that the director may either enter into an agreement with the service provider in respect of an alleged contravention or cause a directed investigation to start. Section 40 provides that the director may enter into a written agreement with a service provider. Section 41 provides for definitions of terms used in Chapter 4. Section 42 provides that the director may direct an authorised officer to undertake a directed investigation. Section 43 provides that an authorised officer shall submit a copy of a completed report to the director. Section 44 sets out the actions that may be taken by the director.”
“Section 30 provides that service providers and their designated establishments or legal representatives shall be jointly and severally liable. Part 5 comprises sections 31 to 70. Section 31 provides for the definition of terms used in Part 5 of the Bill. Section 32 is a standard provision intended to protect legal privilege. Section 33 creates an offence if certain persons, including staff, make an unauthorised disclosure. Section 34 creates an offence of giving false information. Section 35 provides for the appointment of authorised officers, while section 36 provides for the powers of those officers. Section 37 provides that a judge of the District Court may issue a search warrant.”
“Part 3, comprising sections 23 and 24, provides for the designation of the director as the enforcement authority and central authority, respectively, for the purposes of the e-evidence regulation. Part 4, comprising sections 25 to 30, provides for the designation of the director as the central authority for the e-evidence directive. Section 25 is a standard provision providing for definitions. Section 26 designates the director as the central authority. Section 27 provides that service providers must designate a designated establishment or a legal representative for the receipt of, compliance with and enforcement of decisions. Section 28 acts as a companion provision. Section 29 provides that service providers must notify the director of the addresses and contact details of their designated establishments.”
“Section 12 provides for the resignation and removal of the director. The appointment of members of staff is provided for in section 13, while section 14 provides for the appointment by the director of a deputy director. Section 15 provides that the director may engage consultants. Section 16 provides that the director will be indemnified against legal actions. Section 17 outlines the various functions of the director. Section 18 is a standard provision providing for the delegation of functions. Section 19 provides that the director may enter into an information sharing arrangement. Section 20 provides that the director shall submit an annual report. Section 21 sets out the statistical information that the director must collect. Section 22 provides that the director may issue guidance notes.”
“The holder of this office shall be known as the director of criminal justice international co-operation, and is referred to in the Bill as “the Director.” Section 8 also provides that the Schedule to the Bill shall have effect in relation to the director. The Schedule details the provisions applicable to the director, providing that the director will be a corporation sole with perpetual succession and official seal, and the power to sue and be sued. Section 9 provides for the appointment of the director, while section 10 sets out the circumstances in which a person is not eligible or is disqualified. Section 11 is a standard provision providing that a person cannot simultaneously hold office as both the director and as an elected Member of the Oireachtas, the European Parliament or a local authority.”
“Section 3 is a standard provision regarding expenses. Section 4 provides for the designation of the director of criminal justice international co-operation as the competent authority for the purposes of Article 12(1)(b) of the terrorist content regulation. Section 5 is a necessary companion to section 4. Section 6 provides for the service of notices or other documents under this Bill, including by electronic means. Section 7 is a standard provision relating to regulations. Part 2 of the Bill comprises sections 8 to 22, inclusive. Section 8 provides for the establishment of oifig an stiúrthóra um chomhar idirnáisiúnta ceartais choiriúil, or the office of director of criminal justice international co-operation.”
“Unfortunately, and notwithstanding the significant efforts of both my officials and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, the transposition deadline for the e-evidence directive of 18 February 2026 could not be met. It is, therefore, important to enact this and transpose the directive as soon as possible. The e-evidence regulation applies from 18 August next. The Bill comprises five Parts and a Schedule. Part 1 is comprised of standard provisions concerning the Short Title, commencement and expenses, and the definition of key words. It also addresses matters relating to the designation of the director as the competent authority under Article 12(1)(b) of the terrorist regulation. Section 1 of the Bill provides for the Short Title and commencement. Section 2 provides for the definition of terms.”
“The EU e-evidence package is comprised of two separate but interdependent legislative instruments: the e-evidence regulation and the e-evidence directive. The regulation, which the Oireachtas agreed to opt into in 2018, has direct effect, while the directive is an internal market instrument that is binding on Ireland. The regulation imposes an obligation upon service providers to preserve or produce electronic evidence at the request of a judicial authority of another member state, imposing a legal obligation upon them to do so. The directive requires that member states ensure service providers offering services in the EU designate an addressee to process incoming orders. Both the regulation and the directive require that penalty provisions be put in place to address issues of non-compliance as and when they arise.”
“However, this approach lacks enforcement power, does not adequately protect fundamental rights and leaves it up to service providers to determine the legitimacy of requests. The Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment to implement the EU e-evidence package. That package provides a clear, legally certain and efficient process for law enforcement in one member state to directly request electronic evidence from service providers established in another member state, while protecting fundamental rights. Ireland's role is central to the implementation of the e-evidence package. It is expected that up to 600 service providers could designate their “addressee” in the State. To date, Department officials have identified over 400 service providers subject to the package. It is important legislation from Ireland’s perspective.”
“I welcome this opportunity to introduce the Criminal Justice (International cooperation on Electronic Evidence and Other Matters) Bill. It recently passed all stages in the Dáil. Electronic evidence is central to almost every modern criminal investigation. Data now moves rapidly across the globe. As a consequence, the investigation of crime in one member state is often dependent on evidence located in another member state. Electronic data is inherently volatile. It is easily deleted, altered or moved. Of course, the emergence of cloud computing, where the exact physical location of data is transitory and dynamic, brings further jurisdictional difficulties. Law enforcement has increasingly become reliant on voluntary co-operation with service providers.”
“I do not want to start speaking on areas of policy that are not my responsibility. The Minister, Deputy Foley, has spoken on this before and with the permission of the Seanad I will evade that question and let her deal with it.”
“He mentioned west Cork and I am conscious one of the big stains on the character of justice in the country is the fact no-one has ever been brought to justice for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier. As the Minister for justice that is embarrassing to me, as I am aware it is to people in this House. I hope that heinous crime can be resolved. As a final point, I am not trying to shy away from this but I am not the Minister for children, even though the legislation I am bringing forward is to do with the Guardianship of Infants Act. I am informed in terms of the issues about legal representation. Where the guardian ad litem needs legal representation, this will be provided. However, it must be acknowledged legal representation is not always required by the guardian ad litem .”
“I agree with what she was saying about violent pornography. I spoke about that this morning at the Women's Aid report launch. It is having a very distorting impact on the development of young people's sexuality and we need to ensure people realise relationships should be healthy relationships. I hear what Senator Clonan said as well and echo what is contained in the Women's Aid report. It recognises the overwhelming majority of violence done to women is done by people they are in a relationship with and that while stranger violence can happen, violence is typically inflicted on women by those they are or were in a relationship with. I thank Senator O'Donovan for his contribution as well.”
“Self-defence is a defence and people are acquitted, so it is not going to arise if somebody is acquitted but if somebody is convicted of manslaughter it will have to be considered. I thank Senator Cosgrove for her support. She asked me whether the Bill's provisions are constitutionally watertight and I believe they are. She asked me if they will not be subject to challenge but I cannot guarantee that. People are entitled to challenge legislation and when you think of the powers we are taking away from people here - the right to guardianship is a significant statutory and moral responsibility people have - I suspect it will be challenged. However, we should not shy away from introducing legislation just because people may challenge it in future. I believe it will withstand that challenge. I thank Senator O'Reilly for her comments.”
“That was in an amendment put forward by Deputy Carthy in the Dáil. The better way to deal with that is how it is dealt with in the legislation at present, that is, Tusla decides to bring the application but it must bring it if it is for the benefit of the protection of the child. Let us take the example of a mother who in self-defence committed a criminal act. In such circumstances Tusla could decide not to bring the application. There are issues with the amendment put forward by Sinn Féin in the Dáil that would make it impossible to navigate in terms of how it is presented. If you are convicted of manslaughter this arises but generally if it is self-defence you get acquitted.”
“You cannot just wait for a person to be convicted. What happens in that interim period is the day a mother is killed, somebody has to step in to the position of minding the children, especially if it is the case the father has been arrested and remanded in custody. The child care order issue between Tusla and the family can also be dealt with in the unusual circumstances of a guardian being remanded on bail if they are charged with murder. The Senator also spoke about hearing the voice of the child. Section 12F of the legislation provides a mechanism for the voice of the child to be heard. I am also bringing forward a policy proposal to ensure the voice of the child is properly heard in all forms of proceeding. Senator Tully asked about what happens in circumstances where somebody is convicted of manslaughter but it was self-defence.”
“Bhí mé ag éisteacht go cúramach lena óráid. He spoke about the importance of child protection being at the heart of this. I also listened to Senators McCormack and Tully. Senator McCormack referred to very many gaps in legislation. There are, but I am trying to address them. It is important also in these Houses that we listen to other Members and if they bring forward proposals I think are good I will try to adopt them or else they can issued by way of a Private Members' Bill. I think Senator McCormack also referred to the issue of the application process being brought by Tusla and I answered that a few moments ago. Senator Tully asked what happens in the time between a crime being committed and sentencing. I sort of answered that a few moments ago in response to Senator Keogan. Obviously measures have to be put in place immediately.”
“I know Senator Keogan agrees with that; it is an extremely difficult job. It is the statutory agency responsible for the care of children. There is no other agency it would be appropriate to give this function to. It is also appropriate to place such a high level of discretion in Tusla. One of the arguments raised in the Dáil was Tusla must bring an application within six months if it is satisfied it is in the best interests of the child. That second hurdle will be easily overcome. Obviously there is nothing to stop family members from writing to Tusla or asking it to bring an application but it is better to have the application process controlled by one statutory agency as opposed to family members having the burden of bringing it forward. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Seanadóir Kelleher freisin.”
“Senator Keogan also spoke about Tusla and concern about how it carries out its functions. No statutory body has a more difficult job than Tusla.”
“Thus, in the situation Senator Keogan is concerned about, grandparents may apply to the court once Tusla brings the application for the purpose of seeking to ensure they are notice parties and their concerns can be heard. The Senator also raised the constitutionality of the Bill. Removing guardianship is a very significant step. Notwithstanding that, what is premising this Bill is concern for child's welfare. Protection of the child is the primary focus of this legislation. There are very many measures put in place where custody of children is taken off parents because they simply cannot care for the kids and that is something regarded as constitutional. It is also important to point out it is not interfering with or seeking to interfere with parenthood. The parents remain the same no matter what. This is about guardianship.”
“You could have, for instance, parents of the deceased bringing an application while at the same time the parents of the convicted person are bringing an application, or siblings from different sides of the family. It could create a very tense situation because families do not, as we all know, think in a homogenous way and family members will have different perspectives on what should happen. Consequently, I took on board the recommendation from the justice committee and accordingly, Tusla will bring the application but family members - and it is a very broad definition of family - can apply to be notice parties to the application.”
“As such, it is important to recognise there is an immediate response, as is necessary in the tragic circumstances where one guardian is murdered on a particular day and there are children there. Somebody needs to mind the children and there are arrangements put in place for that. Senator Keogan's concern is why there is not a provision in the legislation to allow for a family member, such as a grandparent, to bring an application under this procedure. As she will be aware from the legislation I am introducing, only Tusla can bring the application. I gave careful consideration to that. If we think about it, it is going to mean there could be conflicting interests and conflicting applications being made.”
“One of the points raised by Senator Keogan she felt merited attention was kinship care in circumstances where the legislation does not provide a mechanism for, say, grandparents or another family member to bring the application. This was related to a point another Senator discussed as well. In general, what happens when a tragic event like this occurs - and regrettably it is generally the case a mother has been killed by the father - is somebody needs to look after the children on the evening of the fatality. Usually grandparents, a sister of the deceased or a close relative will step in. If there is no available relative, Tusla will step in and bring an application under the Child Care Act 1991.”
“I thank Senators for their considered contributions. I thank all those Senators who welcomed the Bill, which I think was universally the case. I will take on board the suggestions that were advanced. Senator Gallagher welcomed the Bill. He, like everyone else, echoed the legitimate and genuine recognition that everyone in this House and the other House wants to give to the French family for the work they have done, particularly David French. I wish to start my comments by echoing that. Senator Keogan said that, like all legislation, we should approach it with a great degree of caution. Any time we are legislating, we have to consider it very carefully. That is why I very much welcome the contributors in Seanad Éireann because we get a cautious response and one that seeks to interrogate the legislation.”
“Where the guardian ad litem appointed for a child is no longer available or suitable to act for the child, in order to continue to meet the requirements of the court order concerned, it is an administrative necessity to provide in legislation for a replacement guardian ad litem for the child. In terms of other amendments, I intend to bring on Committee Stage some technical amendments of a drafting nature to provide for cases under these provisions to be heard in the family District Court on commencement of the 2024 Act and a technical amendment to section 6C of the 1964 Act to account for the insertion by this Bill of the new Part 2A. Many details will merit debate, and I look forward to contributions from Senators.”
“Section 4 is a technical amendment to section 8A of the 1964 Act and Part 3 of the Bill, comprising sections 5 and 6, provides for a short set of technical amendments to the provision for guardians ad litem in Part VA of the Child Care Act 1991. These amendments are included at the request of Deputy Foley, the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality. They ensure that the policy intent in respect of the appointment of guardians ad litem and the provision to them of legal advice and legal representation under the guardian ad litem national service, which is in operation as of yesterday, is set out clearly in the legislation for the avoidance of any doubt.”
“They will provide the necessary legal basis to permit Tusla to share and receive data with relevant bodies to enable it to perform its functions under this Part. Section 12I provides for individuals to be made notice parties to proceedings. Any guardian of the child must be made a notice party to the proceedings. Any relative of the child may seek leave to be joined as a notice party and this is broadly defined. This section implements a request of stakeholders and a recommendation of the Oireachtas joint committee that family members be in a position to be made notice parties to proceedings. Section 12J provides for the retrospective application of this Part to cases where a conviction pre-dates the commencement of the provisions of this Bill.”
“This section applies the relevant provisions of the 1991 Act, as amended by the Child Care Act 2022. This includes a requirement for the court to appoint a guardian ad litem unless it is satisfied that the best interests of the child can be determined without such an appointment. Where a court has decided not to appoint a guardian ad litem , it will be required to give reasons for its decisions in writing. Section 12G provides for jurisdiction and the conduct of proceedings under this Part, which will be heard in the District Court and in the family District Court on commencement of the Family Courts Act 2024. Section 12H provides for the necessary safeguards in relation to data protection and data sharing. Consultation has been undertaken with the Data Protection Commission in developing these provisions.”
“Tusla may make such an application where there has been a failure of parental duty, as in section 12C, and there has been a change in the care arrangements or guardianship of the child as a result of the serious offence. Unlike section 12C regarding murder and manslaughter, the provision here will be a discretionary power for Tusla, that is, the power to ensure that guardianship of the convicted only can still be removed or restricted in situations where the victim guardian has not been killed but is not in a position to exercise their guardianship. Section 12E provides for the procedures for a review of court orders under this Part. Section 12F provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the voice of the child in proceedings under this Part.”
“It is important here to emphasise that Tusla is required in these circumstances to make an application. However, it will be a matter for the court to determine the form of the order to be made, considering the best interests of the child. Section 12D provides for the same procedure and powers on the part of Tusla and the court in circumstances where the other guardian of the child has been a victim of a serious offence but has not been killed. A serious offence is defined as an offence causing serious harm, which carries at least a penalty of ten years imprisonment. In these circumstances Tusla may apply to the court for an order removing or restricting guardianship of the guardian who has been convicted of a serious offence.”