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 14 of 84.
“I will briefly respond if I can. Senator McDowell has raised some very interesting points. This is a complex and difficult issue. I do not believe that the appropriate mechanism to deal with this complex and difficult issue is in the legislation that is going through the Seanad today. What Senator McDowell wants to be able to get information on, through this legislation, is details pertaining to the nationality, the race and the social status of persons searched. The Senator referred to what is happening in the UK. I am nearly hesitant to move into this territory, but what I want to see happen as Minister for justice is that when a member of An Garda Síochána exercises powers that they have under section 8, section 9 or section 10, they do so completely blind to an individual's race, gender or nationality.”
“Where demographic information is lawfully available through other datasets the identifier can facilitate broader statistical analysis without requiring ethnicity to be recorded during every encounter. For those reasons, I think it would be inappropriate to include this amendment so that it would operate in respect of every time a garda invoked powers of stop and search. However, I do recognise that accumulation of this data is important and worthwhile, and there is work being done on the common identifier for that purpose.”
“This will enable gardaí, courts, prisons and probation records relating to the same individual to be connected, and it will improve the State's ability to assess the operation of criminal justice powers. The Department of justice has indicated that the preferred approach is to use the PPSN as that identifier and it awaits legal advice on that matter. The objective is to allow information to be linked across different parts of the justice system. This will avoid duplication and improve data quality. Similar approaches to record linkage already exist in other areas of the public sector, including health, although their application to the criminal justice system would be different. Importantly, the operation of a common identifier does not depend on the routine recording of ethnicity at the point of stop and search.”
“The fact that a search does not result in the seizure of a relevant article or evidence does not of itself indicate that the search was unjustified or improperly carried out. The statutory test is whether the member has reasonable grounds for suspicion at the time the power is exercised. Stop-and-search powers are preventative as well as investigative and, accordingly, seizure rates viewed in isolation may not necessarily provide a complete picture of the operation of these powers. I also should point out that the programme for Government has committed to introducing a common identifier for individuals who interact with the criminal justice system.”
“This would inflict serious damage on the ability of members of An Garda Síochána to do their job spontaneously, based on decisions they make on the spur of the moment and based on their reasonable suspicion. The Senator should be aware that the Government is currently considering how demographic information may be used appropriately across the criminal justice system, including through the development of a common identifier for individuals engaging with the criminal justice system. That work is ongoing. I believe it provides a more appropriate context in which to consider these complex issues than an amendment to the stop-and-search provisions of the Bill. I also have reservations regarding subsection (1)(c) of the amendment.”
“If a garda is suspicious that somebody has committed or is committing an offence and stops that person and avails of the powers under this legislation, he or she will know that if they stop the person and search them for that reason, he or she will nearly have to go through a questionnaire with the person to find out his or her age, race, gender, nationality and social status. That would grossly undermine the purpose of the legislation and the provision. I agree with Senator McDowell, and I am well aware that this information would be very useful to have in terms of trying to identify people who come in contact with the criminal justice system. However, I do not believe this is the mechanism to do it.”
“It may lengthen what is intended to be a brief interaction and risks increasing tensions at what is already a sensitive moment. There may be more appropriate ways of collecting such information that ensures it is accurate, consistently recorded and capable of meaningful analysis. That is a valid point. If we think of the powers that are contained here for stop and search, they are powers that are going to be exercised based on reasonable suspicion and a decision that a member of An Garda Síochána is going to make immediately and spontaneously. If it is a requirement that information relating to the age, gender, race, nationality and social status of the persons concerned is collated, the search process is going to become inordinately complicated.”
“While this amendment does not amend section 13 directly, it would repurpose information gathered in the course of individual stop-and-search encounters for a broader statistical reporting function, including the publication of demographic information relating to persons stopped and searched. I recognise the importance of accountability and of understanding whether patterns of disproportionality exist. However, I am not convinced that a stop-and-search encounter is the appropriate setting in which to collect sensitive demographic information. Stop and search is intended to be a brief and focused interaction based on reasonable suspicion. Requiring members to collect information relating to race, nationality, Traveller identity or social status at that point raises practical and methodological concerns.”
“I thank Senator McDowell for the amendment. It is important to state that the purpose of recording information in relation to a particular stop and search, as provided for in section 13, is to provide a clear and factual account of the incident, which may be relied upon by the person concerned. That needs to be emphasised. Section 13 is for the benefit of the person who is searched. It was not designed as a mechanism for statistical reporting on the operation of Garda powers generally. That is an issue of importance and which should be available, but that is not the purpose of section 13.”
“I fail to see the legislative advantage to putting in primary legislation the place where a person is searched in circumstances where the objective of the provision is to enable a person to seek information. They will know where they were searched.”
“Section 13(3) is relevant to this. Obviously there is a purpose behind keeping the record of this information. The reason is the person or driver who is the subject of a search may make a request in writing to a superintendent in the Garda Síochána district in which the search was carried out for a copy of the record. The purpose of section 13 is to enable the person who is searched to get information. The real information they are looking for is the reason or reasons for the search. They will be aware of where they were searched, of that there is no doubt. The location of a search is recorded on PULSE, so PULSE will identify where a person was stopped.”
“The purpose of the section is to establish the key elements that must be recorded in law. It is neither necessary nor desirable to proscribe every operational detail on the face of primary legislation, where those matters are already addressed through Garda procedures and recording systems. I am satisfied that sufficient records of the exercise of these powers will be available for operational, supervisory and accountability purposes without the need for this additional statutory requirement.”
“I do not see the relevance or usefulness of the place of the search. We are getting the name and personal information in respect of the individual but regarding the place where the search took place, does it matter if it happened in one street in Monaghan town or another street in Monaghan town? I understand the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that an adequate record is maintained of the exercise of search powers but it is not necessary. Section 13 already provides for a statutory record to be made of the search, including the time and date on which it occurred. In addition, Garda operational records, such as PULSE, routinely captures further details relating to the exercise of search powers, including information regarding the location of an incident. That information is already provided for on PULSE.”
“I understand what the Senator wants to do is insert the word "place" in section 13(2)(b) so that will be recorded. A lot of information is being recorded already under section 13. It requires the Garda to keep a record that shall contain the following information; the name, address and date of birth of the person or the driver of the vehicle concerned; the time and date of the search the reason or reasons for the search; the provision of this Part under which the search was conducted; and the outcome of the search, including where a search results in the seizure of a thing suspected to be a relevant article or evidence of or relating to the commission or intended commission of an offence, the thing concerned. All of the crucial detail in respect of the search is provided.”
“I thank Senator O'Donovan for his contribution and commend him on that. The requirement is imposed by the member of An Garda Síochána and the wording is "require to driver". The garda can permit somebody, to use Senator McDowell's example, to go if they need to go to the toilet. The garda can restrict or limit the requirement imposed on them. I again thank Senator O'Donovan for his helpful contribution in terms of the practicality of what happens when a search of a vehicle is ongoing.”
“Subsection (4) provides necessary clarity as to how compliance with this particular requirement is to be assessed. The purpose is very clear. A garda is entitled to direct a person who is in charge of a vehicle, who is in it, who is on it or who is accompanying it to stay with a vehicle while a search is carried out. If he of she does not do that and breach the requirement set by the garda, he or she is committing an offence.”
“Their purpose is to ensure that lawful searches can be carried out effectively and safely, and that there is clarity for both members of An Garda Síochána and members of the public as to what compliance with a lawful direction requires. Notwithstanding what Senator McDowell views as the inelegance of the drafting, I am satisfied that subsection (4) is both necessary and proportionate, and I cannot support its deletion. As we know, the amendment would also delete a reference to section 15, which is the offences section. That applies only where a person obstructs a member of An Garda Síochána acting under the powers conferred by the legislation or fails to comply with a lawful requirement made under those powers. The offences provision is intended to support the effective operation of the statutory powers granted by the Oireachtas.”
“A person of whom such a requirement has been made, shall for the purposes of determining whether an offence has been committed - the offences are under section 15 - be considered to have failed to comply with that requirement, which, in effect, means they are committing an offence, "where he or she at time while the requirement is in force, is not in, on or accompanying the vehicle in relation to which the requirement was made". This provision is seeking to say that anyone who disobeys a direction - an order - from a garda that requires them to stay with the vehicle is committing an offence. That is the purpose of the provision. Similar provisions already exist in respect of many offences on the Statute Book.”
“It makes it extremely difficult for the garda to complete the search. What we are trying to do is put forward a provision that would make the failure to comply with that requirement an offence in those circumstances. That is what is set out in section 11(4), which refers to "A person of whom a requirement under paragraph (c) of subsection (2) is made". In other words, it relates to the person who is told to stay with the car, accompany the car or to be in or on the car.”
“Can I try to explain it to Senators? Section 11 deals with additional provisions to search. Section 11(2) says, "Where a member decides to search a vehicle under section 9 or 10 , the member may do one or more of the following". This is a provision that arises when a member of An Garda Síochána, exercising their reasonable suspicions available under sections 8 or 9 , decides that it is necessary to search a vehicle. Section 11(2)(c) says that one of the things the garda can do is, "require the driver to be in or on or to accompany the vehicle, as may be appropriate, for so long as is necessary to complete the search". If a garda wants to search a car, he can say to the person in, on or accompanying the car that they have to stay with the vehicle while the officer searches it. What happens if the person decides that they are heading off?”
“However, my preliminary view, in advance of receiving that advice, is that it is fairly implicit in the provision that this is a power, as is the case with all Garda powers, that can only be exercised in circumstances where a garda is in a public place or lawfully present.”
“If it was the case that the provision was enacted as it is, and if a member of An Garda Síochána was unlawfully present in somebody's residence and sought to invoke section 8 by asking the person whom they reasonably suspected of committing an offence to provide his or her name, address and date of birth, I think it is fairly clear that the courts would not find any offence being committed in circumstances where the garda was unlawfully present when that power was invoked under section 8. As I said to Senator McDowell on the last occasion, I will get advice from officials in respect of this and if I am not satisfied with that advice, I will bring forward an amendment in the Dáil, and obviously we will come back to this House, to put in the limitation contained in section 9.”
“I do not consider that such an outcome would be appropriate or conducive to the effective investigation and prevention of crime. For that reason, I am not in a position to accept the amendment. It is also the case that the provision can be read in such a way that this is not a power that is exercisable at large. It is expressly conditioned by the requirement that the member have reasonable grounds for the relevant suspicion before any such requirement may be made. It is this threshold safeguard that ensures the power is both necessary and appropriately constrained.”
“1, which Senator McDowell has put forward today and we are considering, is not an amendment that seeks to amend section 8 by inserting the restrictions I just outlined, namely, that this is a power that can only be exercised by the Garda in a public place or where it is lawfully present. Instead, the amendment seeks to remove section 8 in its entirety. I cannot accept that because it is an important power An Garda Síochána has. In practical terms, if this section 8 was removed, it would mean that even where a garda has reasonable grounds to suspect criminal offending or the possession of a relevant article, there would be no statutory authority under Part 2 to require a person to provide basic identifying information.”
“The first part of it expressly limited the locations where that power could be exercised to a public place or where the Garda was otherwise lawfully present. I said I would look at it and I have asked officials to look at it. The Senator is correct in stating that I do not have an amendment before the Oireachtas today. Once I get the advice from officials and if I am not satisfied with it, I will require an amendment to be brought forward in the Dáil for the purpose of amending section 8 so that it contains a similar restriction as in the introductory part of section 9. However, amendment No.”
“Senator McDowell is correct in stating that he highlighted on Committee Stage a concern he had about section 8 of the Bill. His concern was that if the section was read in a particular way, it could imply that a member of An Garda Síochána had authority to stop someone and require them to give their name, address and date of birth, even if they were not lawfully present on the person's premises or elsewhere. At the time I indicated that I thought it was implicit within section 8 that this power could only be exercised in a public place or in a place where a member of An Garda Síochána is lawfully present. However, I did recognise that section 9 contains a not dissimilar power concerning stop and search for possession of a relevant article.”
“I thank Senator McDowell for his amendment and his contribution. It is important to point out there are ten amendments on Report Stage and three hours for them. I am happy to be here for the three hours. It is also important to recall that for the Garda Síochána (Powers) Bill 2026, which I deliberately started in the Seanad, I was here for Second Stage on 4 February and Committee Stage on 14 May, 26 May and 10 June. I have given a lot of time to listening to what Senators have to say in respect of the legislation. The guillotine will not be necessary tonight because I know we will be able to finish ten amendments within three hours. It is unfair to say it has been rushed or railroaded when the Bill has been in the House since 4 February and this is my fifth appearance before the House in respect of the legislation.”
“That is why the British wish to have more co-operation with the EU in respect of it. The migration pact went through the Houses of the Oireachtas and the elected representatives of the people of Ireland decided to vote for it and the elected representatives of both Houses voted for the International Protection Act 2026 on which I spent many days here, and that is democracy in operation.”
“There is no diminution or undermining of Irish sovereignty. This is Irish sovereignty and if we do not want to opt into it, we do not have to opt into it. The Senator also sought to compare this to the migration pact. I must remind her that Sinn Féin voted for two of the directives in the European Parliament in the migration pact. It is now the mantra of Sinn Féin when it comes to the migration pact that we need to opt out and Europe is forcing these rules upon us. The UK tried to do the same. The UK decided it would go it alone on migration and now it needs the assistance of the European Union. The only way to resolve issues in terms of irregular or intermitted migration is through a co-ordinated European approach. It is a European-wide and global issue. It requires a European and global response.”
“The proposal is published and we then need to get legal advice in respect of it. The legal advice was received on 27 May and we then need time to consider the advice and bring the motion. There is always going to be a tight period if we proceed down the route of an Article 3 opt in but there are benefits to opting in. If we opted in under Article 4, Ireland would not have a vote on the final negotiations. It is to our advantage to have a vote on the final negotiations. Senator McCormack seemed to suggest this was in some respect an undermining of sovereignty. This is Irish sovereignty. This is the House of the Irish Parliament, a House of the Oireachtas. We will be in the Dáil later with this proposal. The elected Members of the Seanad and the Dáil will decide whether we opt into this.”
“There is a significant difference between the two articles. Senator McDowell also referred to the lengthy document. Obviously, he was able to get it. I have it and I assume other Members are able to read the proposal when it comes to an Article 3 opt-in proposal or an Article 4 directive. If that is not the case, they should be informed that there is a substantive document behind it but that is something the Houses could work on to ensure that, when it comes to an opt-in, Senators and Deputies have the legal instrument it is proposed we opt in to or proposed to adopt in due course. That is information readily available but, notwithstanding that, I hear the point Senator McDowell is making. We received legal advice on 27 May on the opt-in procedures. Time limits are imposed on us as well. We have a three-month period.”
“If we opt into that proposal, we can at least try to fashion and direct the final legal instrument which will be the directive. There is, therefore, a clear benefit to being a party to the negotiation of the directive as opposed to just standing at the end asking whether we take it or not. That is the reason we adopted in that way. How long do I have?”
“What happens then is that the provisions of Article 2 of protocol 21 apply, which means we are not covered by it. That brings me to the issue that was raised by Senator McCormack who complained about the fact that we are opting in under Article 3 as opposed to opting in under Article 4. As I have said previously, there is a difference between the two. If we opt in under Article 4, I come to the House once a directive has been agreed and adopted by the EU. All I can say to the House is we can either accept it or leave it and ask whether we want to opt in or not. The benefit of opting in under Article 3 is that we are opting into a proposal. As Senator McDowell mentioned, the large document he has with him is a proposal to amend Directive 2024/1260.”
“It may have nearly happened but it did not happen, which is another thing. It is still a fairly remarkable statistic that we find ourselves in a situation where last year and this year to date, there has not been a gun-related homicide. It is something to be extremely welcomed. Senator McDowell raised a question about what happens if we opt in under Article 3 and then, let us say, we go into negotiations and they do not work out for us and we do not want to be bound by it. That is provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 3 of Protocol 21, which states: "If after a reasonable period of time a measure ... cannot be adopted with the United Kingdom or Ireland taking part, the Council may [still] adopt such measure" without Ireland taking part. The Council may still adopt it without Ireland taking part.”
“I thank Senators for their contributions. I will point out an important statistic in respect of firearms in Ireland. Last year, 2025, and to date this year, there has not been one gun-related homicide in Ireland. That is a fairly extraordinary statistic. I am slightly reticent about stating it because once you say something like this, inevitably, something happens but for the past 18 months, there has not been one gun-related killing in Ireland. In fact, it could be longer than 18 months. That does not happen by accident. It happens because of the very effective and professional work of An Garda Síochána in seeking to confiscate illegally held weapons in Ireland, but also in seeking to prevent the importation of illicit weaponry into Ireland. I just want to make that point at the outset.”
“Harmonised EU-level action will also support broader security goals as firearms crimes are closely linked to terrorism, money laundering, drug trafficking and other types of organised crimes. In Ireland, we already have robust legislation safeguarding the use of firearms through the Firearms Act 1925, although that Act could probably do with modernisation. However, this directive represents the first firearms trafficking measure at EU level. This legislation will remove the fragmentation that exists across the EU to provide for harmonisation. The views of the Attorney General have been sought on this directive. The advice has confirmed that there are no legal or constitutional obstacles to Ireland opting in to this directive. In light of this, I urge Members of the Seanad to support this proposed opt-in.”
“The proposal I am bringing before the Seanad today seeks to target intentional acts involving illicit firearms and does not propose to change existing EU rules on the legal acquisition, possession and cross-border movement of legal firearms. The directive aims to protect EU citizens from the threat of illicit firearms by reducing the number of illegal weapons and related criminal activities. The proposal will harmonise definitions and penalties in respect of criminal offences, including the trafficking, manufacturing and possession of illicit firearms. Under the proposed directive, each member state will be obliged to establish a national firearms focal point to facilitate co-ordination and co-operation between the competent authorities.”
“Key challenges that have been identified and which further the facilitation of illicit firearms trafficking include the technological shifts creating the possibility of online dissemination of 3D printing blueprints and the large gap in data and reliable comprehensive statistics making it more challenging for law enforcement and policymakers to assess the scale of this threat. Despite this, firearms trafficking has been consistently identified as a major internal security threat to the EU. As well as the need for harmonisation of criminal standards being highlighted in the 2025 ProtectEU internal security strategy, there are significant differences in how firearms-related crimes are defined and punished across the member states. This lack of harmonisation hinders cross-border co-operation and complicates investigations.”
“The European Commission's proposal will introduce common definitions of firearms offences and penalties, support stronger co-operation and improve the collection and use of data. As we are all aware, illicit firearms pose a serious threat to the safety of all EU citizens. They enable a wide range of serious and organised crimes, including drug trafficking, robbery and gang violence. The issue has intensified due to geopolitical events in geographical proximity to the Union. There is a high risk that the surplus of weapons from ongoing conflicts, such as the one in Ukraine, will leak into illegal markets. An Garda Síochána has discussed this matter with me. It is an issue we have to be constantly vigilant for.”
“It must also be noted that Ireland made a declaration appended to the Treaty of Lisbon of its intention to opt in to measures in the area of freedom, security and justice to the maximum extent it deems possible. Opting in to this proposal now represents an important opportunity for Ireland to reiterate our commitment to the importance of tackling illicit firearms, the trafficking of which poses a serious threat to both our own and our European neighbours' security and beyond. The aim of this proposal is to create a common EU criminal law framework to combat the illicit trafficking, manufacture, possession and distribution of firearms. It has been proposed as a measure to counter the threat posed by organised crime, terrorism and emerging technologies, such as 3D-printed weapons.”
“Protocol 21 provides that Ireland has three months from the date a proposal is presented to the Council to notify the Presidency of its wish to take part in the negotiation, adoption and application of the measure. The exercise of this opt-in is subject to the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas, with the three-month period for this proposal ending on 23 June 2026. We have brought this proposal to the Houses for consideration as swiftly as has been possible. Ireland can also accept a proposal at any time after it has been adopted - that is under Article 4 - but in such cases, Ireland will not have been in a position to vote on the final content of the proposal.”
“I thank the Seanad for facilitating this motion today. I am here to address the Seanad with respect to Ireland's proposed opt-in to a new EU proposal for a directive on combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences. Ireland has an option to opt in to individual proposals in the area of freedom, security and justice, as provided for in Article 3 of Protocol 21, annexe to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. An Article 3 opt-in must be done within three months of publication. The advantage of Article 3 as opposed to Article 4 is that it gives us an opportunity to be party to and part of the negotiations, whereas Article 4 is an opt-in after it has been adopted, so we cannot have any say in respect of how the legal instrument develops.”
“I am sure in many instances the court will permit that while not turning it into a situation where every family member has a separate entitlement to be heard. We can then have a prompt decision which, as always, is guided by what is in the best interests of the very unfortunate children who are left behind.”
“I have included that in section 12I and the process whereby the application is made and people can contact Tusla is sufficient. I just do not want to put Tusla on a defensive, litigious footing when it comes to communications from family members where Tusla has a statutory obligation to provide reasons to those people that it is not bringing the application. I do not want that to become the dominant part. We want this to be as simple as possible. There is a conviction for murder or manslaughter. It is in the best interests of the child for an application to be made under this section. Tusla goes promptly to the District Court. The District Court considers the application. Family members will apply to the District Court to be heard and put on notice.”
“It is always the case that if Tusla is not fulfilling its public law duty as required, there are remedies available to family members, guardians ad litem or the other guardians by way of judicial review. That is not the outcome anyone wants but there is a certain architecture to this legislation that will permit families to engage with Tusla. It permits family members or relatives to be put on notice of the application before the courts. If family members are put on notice of the application, they will be given a right to be heard by the District Court so their views will be well aired before the court. In balancing the rights of relatives, or the next of kin as Deputy Carthy referred to, it is important they have a process in which their views can be accommodated and listened to.”
“There may be reasons that are sensitive or personal which Tusla might not want to give out because of the central importance of the child being protected. They could be matters confidential to the child, such as the child's views. I appreciate what Deputy Carthy is trying to do in all the amendments but I have to try to ensure that, at the end of this, we get a Bill that is coherent and will work and I am concerned that doing this would undermine the effectiveness of the legislation. On balance, I do not think it would improve the legislation. I say that with the greatest of respect for Deputy Carthy. I am fearful the obligation on Tusla to provide reasons would become quite a legal process. It would recognise that any reasons it gives out would have to thorough and that might have an impact on the decisions it makes.”
“As Deputy Carthy fairly acknowledged I said on Committee Stage, there is nothing to stop relatives, guardians ad litem or other guardians of the child contacting Tusla to say they believe an application should be brought. If it is the case that an application is in the best interests of the child, Tusla must bring it. My real concern about the proposed amendment, however, is the requirement in paragraph (1B) for Tusla to provide reasons to the person who made the request if an application is not made. Although Deputy Carthy does not define "relative", we will assume it has the same definition as it has in section 12I. Deputies will see that I included a very broad definition of "relative". Under this provision, there would be a requirement on Tusla to set out to a broad range of family members reasons an application is not being made.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for his amendment. In paragraph (1A), in effect what Deputy Carthy is seeking to achieve is already the law under the provision. Deputy Carthy's amendment states "where a guardian ad litem of the child, another guardian of the child, or a relative of the child ... is of the opinion that an application ... ought to be made in the best interests of the child", he can request Tusla to do so. The situation at present is that if Tusla believes it is in the best interests of the child - that is the second limb of the test we discussed under amendment No. 1 - it must bring the application, where there has been a conviction of murder or manslaughter. That is a requirement. The purpose of Deputy Carthy's first paragraph is to achieve something that will happen in any event.”
“No disrespect meant to his amendment but the provision in the Bill is far better and the amendment put forward by Deputy Carthy would create confusion.”
“We know that the genesis of this legislation is the love of a brother for his deceased sister. That is why I included, in section 12I, a provision that allows family members to bring an application to the District Court requesting to be put on notice of this application because, for example, they represent the interests of their deceased sister and would like the court to hear those during the hearing of the application. That provision is there already. As well as that, Tusla is not an island. People contact it, write to it and make submissions to it. There is an express statutory provision in place. It is not Tusla that will decide whether a family member is to be a notice party. The court will decide and I think that resolves the issue of concern to Deputy Carthy.”