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 20 of 84.
“The material may not be accessed until the section 24 High Court process is completed. For that reason I am not persuaded that the amendment is necessary. There is a very careful statutory architecture put in place here which first, and importantly, puts into Irish written law statutory protections for journalists, lawyers and others where a privilege may arise. It obviously has to be balanced weighing, on the one hand, the interests of An Garda Síochána in investigating suspected offences and, on the other hand, respecting journalistic privilege, which as Senator McDowell said, is not absolute, as well as other forms of privilege. The procedure, as set out here, will be very effective because ultimately we will have a judge-supervised process.”
“Section 24 is therefore a post-seizure High Court determination mechanism for material identified as being potentially privileged. Requiring at the warrant application stage under section 18 that a determination of privilege under section 24 has been made would be procedurally impossible, as no material will yet have been seized or examined and, therefore, no section 24 process could yet have been triggered. The Bill instead addresses privilege concerns at the application stage, which require gardaí to notify the District Court of known privilege risks, allowing the judge to impose appropriate limitations, including privilege screening prior to further examination in cases where no such risk was identified at the initial stage, and potentially privileged material is subsequently identified.”
“It does not follow that Article 10 itself requires a pre-seizure inter partes hearing in all circumstances, nor does it follow that it would be applicable in all jurisdictions. Rather, the essential requirement is that there be a meaningful opportunity for independent judicial scrutiny before privileged material is examined or used. While I am on my feet, as they say, I should have mentioned amendment No. 33 in my opening comments to this group of amendments. I will give Senators my views on amendment No. 33. I am not agreeable to accepting it because I do not think it would operate coherently within the Bill. A determination under section 24 can only arise after material has been seized or captured pursuant to a search warrant and where, following privilege screening or examination, it is considered that the material may be privileged.”
“Senator O'Reilly referred to the very interesting decision of the Fine Point Films case. That was the decision involving two journalists, Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney, who were both arrested in 2018. They were preparing a documentary in respect of the murders in Loughinisland and allegations of RUC collusion with loyalist paramilitaries. The Northern Irish decision in that case was grounded in the statutory framework of the 1989 legislation, which expressly required an inter partes hearing when search warrants were sought against journalists. In 2023, the Irish Supreme Court endorsed the Fine Point Films case as relevant in Irish law. However, it did not definitively determine that Article 10 requires an inter partes hearing in every case, as opposed to an ex parte process accompanied by appropriate safeguards and judicial scrutiny.”
“When we look at the evidence relevant to the commission of the offence which is about to be committed, it would be stretching credulity to say that a journalist’s notebook in the back seat of the car in some way could be relevant to the commission of the offence. Although I listened to all Senators carefully, I am not as concerned as Senator McDowell is about that. We have to provide powers to An Garda Síochána to conduct searches when it appears to the Garda that a very serious offence is about to be committed. If we look at Schedule 1, we can see it includes murder, manslaughter, firearms offences and other very serious offences, such as child trafficking, pornography and smuggling of persons. There is a whole series of offences, with 16 of them set out there.”
“Senator McDowell went on to section 10(2), which states: Where this section applies, the member concerned may require a person to stop a vehicle for the purposes of enabling the member to ascertain whether [...] any person in or accompanying the vehicle has committed or is about to commit the offence [That is a reasonable power to give An Garda Síochána, particularly when we look at the schedule of offences set out in Schedule 1] or ... evidence relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence by any person .. in or on the vehicle or on any person in or accompanying it.”
“Senator McDowell raised the issue of section 10, which is the power of An Garda Síochána when its members are in a public place and have reasonable grounds to suspect an offence under Schedule 1 has been, is being, or is about to be committed. If we look at what is contained within Schedule 1, we see that the types of offences covered are egregiously serious offences, such as murder, manslaughter, and a whole series of others which are set out.”
“In fact, it generally probably arises in circumstances where the identity of a journalist is not known, or the fact that the person a warrant is being served on is a journalist is not known. If the court believes there should be a privilege screening, there will be an assessment to see if there is anything that could come within the parameters of the protection of privilege. The alternative is that we completely balance the legislation against the interests of the investigation of crime and say that if a garda arrives with a search warrant, a person can say there is journalistic privilege involved and the garda cannot search it. That cannot be the appropriate mechanism to deal with it.”
“It provides that: a search warrant may be expressed, and operate, to authorise the authorised member, in addition to exercising any power specified in sections 18 or 20 , to do such of the following as the issuing judge considers necessary and proportionate having regard to the information provided to him or her by the applicant under section 17 ... One of the things a judge can do is permit the authorised member seeking the warrant "to conduct a privilege screening of the data (whether captured or not) contained in or accessible from an electronic device or information system ... found at the place of search". The purpose of a privilege screening is in circumstances where the journalist is not asserting there is information.”
“It states: in relation to material other than material referred to in paragraph (b) , means a review of the material for the purpose of ascertaining whether it contains privileged material, and [...] in relation to data contained in, or accessible from, an electronic device or information system, means a review of the data for the purpose of ascertaining whether the data contains privileged material ... If we move forward to section 19 of the legislation, we see that section 19(1) sets out the procedure in terms of a search of electronic device or information system under a search warrant.”
“If a garda goes into the premises of a well-known journalist and says they have a search warrant, that person is not mute or incapable of stating the garda cannot search their computer because it is protected by journalistic privilege. In practical terms, that is how that is going to operate. The journalist will assert he has an entitlement to journalistic privilege over the computer or notebook the garda seeks to search. Once that happens, there is a statutory procedure in place that will enable the determination of the issue by a High Court judge, who will ultimately probably have to look at the documentation. That is how it will happen in practice. In terms of the journalistic screening to which Senator Ruane referred, the definition section of the Bill contains a definition of privilege screening.”
“I thank the three Senators for their contribution. I will deal with the issues they raised in order. Senator Ruane inquired about journalistic screening and how this will operate. It is worth pointing out how, in practical terms, this is going to arise. If a garda wants to search the premises of a well-known journalist under the new legislation, he or she will have to notify the District Court judge in advance that the premises is that of a journalist and the person he or she is seeking a search warrant for is a journalist. That will affect the nature of the order that is made by the District Court judge. It is similar when a garda goes to effect the search warrant. We live in a society where we are dependent upon people asserting their rights.”
“While the initial warrant application may proceed ex parte, that reflects the long-standing necessity in criminal investigations to prevent the destruction, concealment or interference with evidence. The subsequent High Court process provides the affected party with a full opportunity to assert privilege before any review of the material can occur. Accordingly, the Bill achieves an appropriate balance between investigative necessity and the protections guaranteed by Article 10. Section 25 further reinforces those safeguards by providing a suspensive period during which the parties may seek agreement on the scope of any potentially privileged material prior to judicial determination. Having regard to those protections, I do not consider the proposed amendment to be required.”
“Just because a lawyer says a document is legally professionally privileged does not mean the other side, the adversary in the case, cannot seek to inspect it. In those circumstances, the court may be required to look at it if the definition as to its privileged status is not sufficiently clear. The framework in the Bill ensures that the balancing exercise required under Article 10 occurs before any substantive access to the material takes place. That is the critical point of interference for convention purposes. The Court of Appeal in Corcoran stressed the importance of judicial oversight prior to access, save in urgent circumstances. Section 24 gives effect to that requirement by making judicial determination a precondition to examination of the material.”
“The Garda powers Bill instead establishes a dedicated High Court process for determining claims of privilege before any examination of the material can occur. I will pause there. Using the example of Mr. Corcoran from before, in an instance where that were to apply after this legislation is enacted, the gardaí would be required to inform the court that Mr. Corcoran was a journalist. If there were a dispute between the parties as to what constituted journalistic privilege, Mr. Corcoran would be able to say that he wanted his claim to privilege to be determined. The way it is determined is by the High Court looking at the documents if necessary - if the description is not sufficient - and it will determine whether or not it is journalistically privileged. That is the case with legal professional privilege as well.”
“The reasoning of the Supreme Court reflects the risk that rigid statutory definitions could exclude emerging forms of media activity in an evolving communications environment, and I agree with that. For those reasons, I am unable to support Senator O'Reilly's amendment. I will briefly deal with amendment No. 31 since it is being discussed. Article 10 of the convention undoubtedly affords strong protection to journalistic sources and confidential material. However, Strasbourg jurisprudence does not mandate a single procedural model for member states nor does it require that every stage of a warrant process occur inter partes . For those reasons, I do not consider amendment No. 31 necessary.”
“Journalistic privilege is not defined to reflect the absence of any settled legal definition of "journalist" in either EU or domestic law and the long-standing reluctance of courts and legislatures to treat journalism as a fixed legal status. Regulation No. 1083 of 2024, the European Media Freedom Act, does not provide a stand-alone definition of "journalist" but instead focuses on protections for journalistic activities. Likewise, EU jurisprudence has consistently examined whether conduct falls within journalistic purposes or journalistic activities rather than attempting to define journalism exhaustively. As I said, in the Corcoran case, the Supreme Court adopted the functional understanding of journalism centred on the gathering and dissemination of information in the public interest.”
“Journalistic privilege is not defined separately because unlike legal professional privilege, it is not absolute and the broad definition is sufficient. This approach permits other privileges, such as public interest privilege, to be considered without needing to define each type individually since the process for handling them is the same. It is the case in Irish law that journalistic privilege is recognised and protected. People have referred to judgments earlier and there is another judgment by Mr. Justice Hogan, which arises from the Cornec case. It is recognised as a form of privilege. However, like many privileges, it is not absolute.”
“They do not have those protections at present under section 10. Lawyers do not have that protection at present under section 10. Obviously members of the Garda are aware of the limitations of section 10 but in recent times what in practical terms happens is the gardaí inform the district judge of the fact, if it is a law firm that is being searched, that that obviously should be brought to the attention of the District Court. I will deal specifically with the amendment tabled by Senator O'Reilly. As I said, she wants, in amendment No. 3, to insert a definition for journalistic privilege. Section 2(2)(b) of the Bill defines privilege as "other than legal professional privilege", a definition which encompasses journalistic privilege as well as other forms.”
“The purpose of the sections that are contained within Part 3 - search of the premises and Senator Ruane referred to some of the provisions - is to set out a statutory mechanism so that if a garda is going to a District Court and he is looking for a search warrant, and he knows that the person he is going to search is a lawyer or a journalist that he has to notify the District Court judge, at the time of making the application, that he believes there may be journalistic privilege or legal professional privilege arising as a result of the search. What I am doing in the legislation is trying to put in place a statutory scheme that respects that. The purpose of this legislation, in terms of Part 3 and the provision in respect of privilege, is that I am giving greater protections to journalists.”
“Implicit in it, and they did not rule it in that case, is that they are sending a message that there is a serious constitutional question mark over section 10 of the 1997 Act because it does not provide for a mechanism for a District Court to be told that the premises being searched may be that of a journalist, a lawyer or an entity that is exercising privilege, or for the process of that privilege to be assessed statutorily. The primary reason I am bringing forward Part 3 of this legislation is in response to what the Supreme Court said. I am seeking to provide a legislative remedy for the defects in section 10 that were, in my opinion, correctly identified by the Supreme Court.”
“They recognised that section 10 does not provide any recognition of the fact that when a garda is searching a premises or applying to the District Court for a search warrant, there is no statutory obligation on the garda to tell the District Court that by the way, the premises we are searching is the home of a journalist or, indeed, using another type of legal professional privilege, would want to search a solicitor's office. In both judgments of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Collins and Mr. Justice Hogan said this is an area that requires urgent legislative intervention by the Oireachtas. I repeat: urgent legislative intervention.”
“Corcoran, having been served with the search warrant and information being sought from him by the Garda, refused to provide the information. He said that he wanted to assert his journalistic privilege and he was not going to provide information relating to his sources. He went all the way to the Supreme Court and he won. In the decisions of the Supreme Court that came out in 2023, two of the judges, and obviously there was unanimity among the court, Mr. Justice Collins and Mr. Justice Hogan expressly referred to section 10 as it exists at present.”
“Subsequent to that, members of An Garda Síochána went to the District Court and availed of the powers available to An Garda Síochána, which are the powers that still exist today, under section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997, to seek a search warrant. They wanted to search Mr. Corcoran's house and his premises. When the gardaí went to the District Court they never told the district judge that the person who they wished to search was a journalist or that the premises they wished to search was the office of The Democrat newspaper. In fairness to the gardaí at the time, there is no requirement on them to do that under section 10 of the 1997 legislation, as it exists at present. Mr.”
“I thank Senator Sarah O'Reilly for tabling this amendment and I thank the other Senators for their contributions. Amendment No. 3 seeks to include within the definitions section of the Bill the definition for journalistic privilege. It is important to remember how this part of the legislation comes before the Houses of the Oireachtas because Senator O'Reilly's amendment, although it is in the definitions section, is to a large extent concerned with Part 3 of the Bill, which deals with the search of premises. The reason, in part, that this section of the legislation is being brought forward is because of the actions of a journalist back in 2018. Emmett Corcoran was a journalist with The Democrat newspaper and doing his job he covered an incident in Strokestown where some violent disorder took place.”
“For that reason, I am unable to support the amendment. There is a benefit in having a broad definition of any "other place" at which a person may be held while in the custody of An Garda Síochána. They obviously still have to be lawfully within the custody of An Garda Síochána. As my examples have illustrated, however, that could be in hospital, in a courthouse or in dedicated airport processing facilities.”
“Senator Ruane wants to take out the latter part of the definition beyond "station" and replace it with "vehicle". Replacing "other place" with the limited term of "vehicle" would unduly restrict lawful custody. Senator Ruane has asked for examples of what type of scenario I am talking about. It is important to note that suspects are frequently detained outside Garda stations for reasons unrelated to transit, as Garda custody extends beyond stations and vehicles. For example, individuals requiring medical attention are held under Garda custody within hospital emergency departments. Detainees may also be held in courthouse holding cells or dedicated airport processing facilities. The current wording is therefore necessary to ensure custody operations safely adapt to practical requirements.”
“I thank Senator Ruane for her amendment. Before dealing with her amendment, I advise the committee of my intention to bring forward amendments on Report Stage. These will primarily provide for the repeal of existing overlapping statutory search warrant provisions to ensure alignment with the broader body of legislation. I also highlight that some amendments may be necessary to address technical drafting issues, as may be agreed between myself and the Attorney General's office for Part 5, concerning persons in Garda custody. I will now deal specifically with Senator Ruane's amendment, which seeks to remove a section of the definition of Garda custody facility. The definition at present provides that a "Garda custody facility" means a station or other place at which a person may be held while in the custody of An Garda Síochána.”
“It is extremely important in both jurisdictions that we are able to show we co-operate thoroughly with inquiries taking place in the neighbouring jurisdiction. As they are differing jurisdictions, it is important that there is that co-operation. I once again thank the Senators for their co-operation.”
“What the states can do is try to provide answers for questions that must be answered in respect of what actually happened. The families and the public in both Ireland and Northern Ireland are entitled to that. I welcome the passage of this legislation. I know it will be of significant assistance to the chairperson of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. It is due to commence its public sittings again in September. As I have stated previously, the Irish State has already entered into a memorandum of understanding with the bombing inquiry, pursuant to which we have provided over 25,000 pages of material. This legislation will ensure that oral evidence can be given for the benefit of that inquiry.”
“I thank Senators for the efficient and speedy way with which they progressed this legislation through the Upper House. As people in this House are aware, it is an extremely important piece of legislation, not just nationally, but, in many respects, internationally as well. The first important aspect of it is that the Omagh bombing was an appalling criminal act. It was probably the worst atrocity on the island during the Troubles. It was essential that this State and the United Kingdom seek to try to provide answers to the families of those who were bereaved as a result of this heinous act of murder. As I have said previously, justice comes to our courts through the criminal justice system. That has not been achieved to date in respect of Omagh.”
“We need to do research into this because we are never going to be able to resolve the problem by simply punishing people after the terrible events occur. We need to investigate and research why it is that men, and predominantly it is men, engage in violence against women. That is something that requires further research and we should not shy away from it. Deputy Coppinger also mentioned issues about the miscellaneous provisions Bill, but we will have an opportunity to discuss that even further when we are back here for Report Stage.”
“Regrettably, it is the case that violence against women is a problem that needs to be confronted and responded to, not just though legislation but also through education, information and ensuring that domestic violence is recognised as the scourge it is and is not tolerated. Deputy Coppinger spoke about violence within homes and familicide, and referred to Northern Ireland. It is the case that Northern Ireland is the most violent place in the United Kingdom for a woman. If we look at the statistics in respect of the killing of women in Northern Ireland, they are significantly higher than they are here in Ireland and they are significantly higher than in Scotland, Wales and England. There is obviously a reason for that.”
“It is about ensuring the best interests of the child are protected. Deputy Nolan is in favour of the legislation but was very critical of Tusla and made some allegations in respect of events happening to young girls in the area. Obviously, if anyone has any information on this it needs to be brought to the attention of An Garda Síochána. However, I do think that Tusla is the appropriate statutory body to bring this application before the District Court. The alternative was to go out of our way to set up a new statutory agency that would simply have responsibility for this and I do not think that was feasible. Deputy Cronin was happy to support the Bill. She spoke about femicide. We do have a problem throughout the world in respect of femicide. We have to confront the problems that this Legislature is responsible for in Ireland.”
“As I said a few moments ago, it is the certainly the case that once a terrible event happens when a guardian kills another guardian, in advance of the determination of criminal liability measures will have to be put in place immediately from that night onwards and that sometimes happens as a result of applications made under the Childcare Act. That is what happens. I will get back to Deputy O'Gorman in respect of the report he mentioned about guardianship. Deputy Butterly also spoke about recognising that it is, in effect, a form of child abuse for one parent to kill another parent. That has an extraordinarily damaging impact on the children left behind. That is why I keep emphasising that this legislation is not about imposing a further punishment on a person who has been convicted of murder or manslaughter.”
“I must say I do not think there is a statutory agency in the State that has a more difficult task than Tusla. It is also important to point out that abuse of children and the need for the State to intervene happens not just within areas where the State has responsibility for children but it happens within families as well. I thank Deputy Devlin for his contribution. Obviously, guardianship is about making decisions as to how a child should be brought up. In many ways it is different from access and custody. Custody is about with whom or where a child should be brought up but guardianship really relates to some of the most fundamental decisions to be made about a child. Deputy O'Gorman also recognised that there needed to be change here. He spoke about consideration being given to an interim order.”
“Obviously, that is going to take a period of time. There is going to be a period of time from the date of the murder or manslaughter until a person is convicted. However, in truth, what happens on an immediate basis, if there is a terrible event that happens - a murder or a manslaughter - measures are immediately put in place in order to put a childcare plan in place for the children. Obviously, the guardianship issue can be dealt with at a later stage but there is literally an immediate requirement to find out who is going to care for the children on the night or for the following number of weeks. That is an issue where the Childcare Act already operates. Deputy Farrelly made points in relation to the Ombudsman for Children and Tusla. There was criticism of Tusla by a number of Deputies.”
“If there had been a mandatory requirement in this legislation that said that if somebody is convicted of murder or manslaughter, they automatically lose guardianship rights, that would have been constitutionally questionable. That is why it was so important to give discretionary power to the court so it could take into consideration all of the individual circumstances. Deputy Kelly also raised the issue of a register of guardians. That is a recommendation which was given serious consideration but, while not trying to disown the necessity for it, it is something beyond the responsibility of this Bill and that would require a considerable body of work as well. Another issue raised by Deputy Kelly was around the timing. Under the legislation an application must be made within six months of conviction.”
“Deputy Devine also asked whether there should be a special exemption in the legislation, say, for somebody convicted of manslaughter but it was in self-defence because they had been subjected to domestic abuse. That point was also raised by Deputy Kelly. The reason there is no mandatory requirement on a court to remove the guardianship rights is because there is a recognition that circumstances in these cases will differ and, as everyone has said, we need to hear the voice of the child as well in terms of these applications. Obviously, if there was a situation that arose as suggested by Deputy Devine, that would be given consideration by the District Court. Deputy Kelly raised some issues about section 12D. I will have a look at that. He raised the issues of Tusla and talked about the constitutionality of the legislation.”
“The legislation as it is drafted at present means that Tusla must bring an application. In many respects, Tusla's function is to get the issue before the District Court. It is then the court that will determine the matter. There is a logic to have a mandatory requirement imposed on a statutory body to bring the issue of removal or restriction of guardianship rights before the District Court. Another issue Deputy Devine raised was whether there should be a specialist unit within Tusla. Fortunately, these applications will not be very large in number. They will still be very significant and very important but it will be the case, I think, that the resourcing within Tusla will be well able to deal with it.”
“I want to deal with some of the points raised by colleagues. There were some very worthwhile points made that I would like to reply to. I welcome Deputy Devine and Sinn Féin welcoming the legislation. Deputy Devine referred to the Oireachtas justice committee. I want to thank the members of the Oireachtas justice committee for the work they did and the recommendations they made. Very many of those recommendations have been implemented and all were considered by me. Deputy Devine questioned whether a family member should be permitted to bring the application as well as Tusla being able to do so. I think that would be unwise because it would put a lot of pressure on family members and there could be disputes within families as to whether such applications should be made.”
“I thank colleagues who have spoken and contributed to the debate. It is notable that everyone who spoke and every political party represented in this House - indeed, every Independent TD - is supportive of this legislation. That is unusual. The reason there is such support for it is significantly because of the memory of Valerie French. The campaigning of David French and his sisters is something at the forefront of the minds of legislators when we are considering this issue. It is generally the case that when there is a human story behind a piece of legislation or when somebody is prepared to advocate from a personal point of view, it can have a very significant impact on the Houses of the Oireachtas. That has certainly happened in the case of Valerie French and the campaign put forward by David and Valerie's sisters.”
“This Bill is a significant and important development in giving the State the tools that it needs to ensure it is the child's best interests, welfare and safety that are prioritised in the aftermath of these horrific crimes. Everyone in the House will agree that this is a worthy purpose and that is why I commend this legislation to the House.”
“I am aware that there is general acceptance across the House that measures are needed to ensure the welfare and safety of children are protected in the wake of what are, thankfully, rare but incredibly serious and tragic circumstances. This Bill has a narrow scope. It seeks to deliver on a well-defined and much-needed recommendation in Study on Familicide and Domestic and Family Violence Death Reviews. The Bill has been carefully calibrated to make sure that it reaches the appropriate balance between the constitutional protection of the family and the constitutional imperative that the best interests of children are the paramount consideration when it comes to their guardianship.”
“At the request of the Minister for Children, Equality and Disability, I intend to provide for the inclusion of a short set of technical amendments to the Child Care Act 1991. While further detail will be provided on Committee Stage, these amendments will 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 are further elaborated in the legislation. These amendments are necessary for the proper operation of this Bill. Many details will merit debate and I look forward to working constructively with Members as the Bill progresses.”
“In such circumstances, where a convicted guardian was convicted of the murder or manslaughter of another guardian of the child, Tusla will be able to apply for an order, as set out in the provisions of section 12C, where there is reasonable cause to believe that there has been a failure of duty on the part of the convicted guardian and Tusla considers it appropriate to apply for such an order. Section 3 is a technical amendment to section 8A of the principal Act to acknowledge the new Part IIA inserted by section 2 of the Bill. Section 4 is a standard provision relating to the Short Title of the Bill and its commencement. The Bill will come into operation on a day to be appointed by me after consultation with the Minister for Children, Equality and Disability. I will speak briefly about the amendments I intend to make on Committee Stage.”
“Section 12I provides for individuals to be made notice parties to proceedings. Any guardian of the child must be made a notice party to proceedings. Any relative of the child may seek leave to be joined as a notice party to proceedings, and this is broadly defined. This section implements a request of stakeholders and a recommendation of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration 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 in which a conviction predates the commencement of the provisions of this Bill.”
“Proceedings will be heard otherwise than in public, as is standard for guardianship and care proceedings. Section 12H provides for the necessary safeguards in relation to data protection and data sharing under this Part. Consultation has been undertaken with the Data Protection Commission in developing these provisions. They will provide for 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. I will, in consultation with the Minister for Children, Equality and Disability, be able to make regulations under this section to specify the nature of and manner in which personal data may be shared and the measures to be taken to ensure that such personal data is shared only where necessary and proportionate.”
“Best practice also includes powers to procure reports, allowing a guardian ad litem to make an application for procurement of a report on any question affecting the welfare of the child where there is no such report, or where it is out of date, after consultation with the parties in the proceedings. It should be noted that the Minister for Children, Equality and Disability will pay the costs or expenses incurred by a guardian ad litem . Section 12G provides for jurisdiction and the conduct of proceedings. Proceedings under this Part will be heard in the District Court, and in the Family District Court on commencement of the relevant sections of the Family Courts Act 2024. This will serve to reduce costs and timelines, along with ensuring that proceedings are heard before the court that is most experienced in dealing with such matters.”
“This section applies the relevant provisions of the 1991 Act, as amended by the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2022. This will ensure that the practices for appointment of guardians ad litem under this Part, once the relevant sections of the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2022 are commenced, are in keeping with best practice. 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 and that it has determined that there are other means to facilitate the expression by the child of those views. Where a court has decided not to appoint a guardian ad litem , it will be required to give reasons for its decision in writing.”