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 77 of 84.
“To take a recent example, Senators will be aware that the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 put existing common law practice on witness anonymity on a statutory footing. Where appropriate, a court may order that the identity of a witness is not disclosed and material intending to identify the witness may be removed or redacted. Similar considerations arise with this Bill, so while the parole context we are discussing is very important, it cannot be fully separated from the other situations where such closed material arises. A coherent and consistent approach would be required from the State. At this stage, I am concerned that a clear rationale has not been identified.”
“A particular issue arises with defining exceptional circumstances in the Bill. I do not think the intention of Senator Ruane is to broaden significantly the use of section 14(1)(b) to withhold information, but it would appear the criteria proposed are in fact quite broad in terms of disclosure being refused on general public interest grounds and might well have that unintended effect. More generally, I note that the importance of disclosed information and how that information is received, tested and weighed goes well beyond the parole process. These issues arise in relation to immigration and national security, Special Criminal Court proceedings and potentially in any criminal or civil proceedings.”
“In that respect, there is clearly work to be done beyond the scope of the current Bill. I will now outline some of the areas where I think there are difficulties with the Bill, but they are difficulties that Senator Ruane and, indeed, the Department could work on to improve it. As it stands, the Bill is silent on various important issues: first, the criteria by which the Minister would determine whether to appoint a special advocate; second, how such advocates might be selected and what their qualifications would be; third, the basis for their clearance to view particular information; fourth, the terms of their service and how would they operate; fifth, what technical support they might receive; sixth, their powers and rights in respect of the parole process; and finally, the consequences of any breach of duties of confidentiality.”
“The integrity of that investigation must be protected but the information is clearly of relevance to the parole decision. Information may have been received from covert investigations or from intelligence sources where disclosure could potentially endanger law enforcement personnel or other persons or hinder investigative work into other offences. It is, of course, true to say that special advocates in civil and criminal proceedings are used in a number of other jurisdictions. Senator Ruane referred to Northern Ireland, where it is on the Statute Book. They are also used in other parts of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada. What is characteristic in those jurisdictions is a detailed body of law and procedures in respect of the operation of the special advocate system.”
“What Senator Ruane suggests, however, is that, as well as taking it into account, there should be an opportunity provided to have the veracity and quality of that information assessed. She recognises that there could not just be a situation where the information is passed over to the parole applicant who then gets to see it, but she is putting in place a filter system through the position of special advocates, who would determine whether the information should be disclosed to the parole applicant. Let us take a straightforward example. In an organised crime context, it may arise that an applicant has ongoing links to an organised crime group and there may be an investigation into the group that is relevant to the parole decision.”
“Such information may arise particularly in relation to organised crime cases and where there are national security implications. For example, where a person has applied for parole to the Parole Board, one of the factors the Parole Board has to consider is whether the individual will be a threat if granted parole or will continue to be involved in criminal activity. If An Garda Síochána was aware or had information leading it to believe the individual was still involved in criminal activity and, consequently, advocate against the granting of parole, that is a factor the Parole Board would have to take into account. I do not think anyone disputes that is a factor that should be taken into account.”
“There may have been some cases that were initiated but they have not resulted in decisions or reserved decisions of the High Court. Nonetheless, as was stated earlier, it is not always the case we have to wait for somebody to go to court to improve legislation. The fact it is not a pressing issue in the public domain should not be a reason the Bill should not be considered. The Senator's Bill would provide that where information is not disclosed, the Minister would be informed and would be required to consider whether to appoint a special advocate who would review the information and potentially make submissions to the board. In practice, there may be quite legitimate reasons to withhold and protect confidential information within the parole process.”
“It is very appropriate we have a statutory system in place in order that people can see how it operates and that it is set out in legislation how this important process should take place. One of the reasons we can have this debate today is there is now far clearer public understanding of the parole process, what information is considered within it and the respective roles of the parties that come before the parole decision-making process. As Senator Ruane has indicated, the purpose of her Bill is to amend a provision so that we can bring in special advocates who will determine whether information that is provided to the Parole Board should also be provided to the parole applicant. I am not aware of any circumstances where this has arisen as an issue.”
“I am very well disposed towards Senators, or indeed Deputies, who introduce Private Members' Bills if they are sensible and contain sensible proposals that are beneficial. I have no sense of being proprietary. It is appropriate that we should try to progress them. It is important to note the Parole Board operates independently of the Minister for Justice. It brings diverse and important skills and experience together and it has unquestionably improved the process of the granting of parole that operates in Ireland today. Prior to the enactment of the Parole Act, many of the decisions - all of the decisions, in fact - of the Parole Board were decisions that were made by the Minister for Justice of the day on the recommendation of the then non-statutory Parole Board.”
“Obviously, that is the entity that will be directly affected by it in terms of the procedures. I will also have to engage with An Garda Síochána. I will not express a final view in respect of the matter until I have done that but I want the Senators to know I will engage on the issue in good faith. I know the period of six months will also give Senator Ruane an opportunity to consider further amendments that might help which I will outline here in due course. First, I commend the work of the Parole Board. I derive great satisfaction and a bit of pride from the existence of the Parole Board since, back in 2020, I introduced the Private Members' Bill, the Parole Bill, that resulted in the enactment of the Parole Act.”
“I want Senators to know that when they put forward legislation and they go to the bother of drafting Private Members' Bills, I will give careful consideration to it. I did the same in respect of Senator Mary Fitzpatrick's Bill in respect of retail workers. I fully understand that this Bill has come up on short notice. I make no criticism of Senator Ruane in respect of that. It just happened that the Bill came up on short notice but I am grateful to the Senator for engaging with me yesterday. The Bill is very well drafted. It raises a couple of interesting points in respect of the processes before the Parole Board, but the main reason for the amendment proposed is that I and the Department need more time to consider what is proposed here. I will also have to engage with the Parole Board.”
“I agree with the amendment that proposes postponing the passing of Second Stage of this Bill for a period of six months. I thank Senator Ruane and Senator Flynn for introducing this legislation. It raises important issues, as has been identified by both Senators. It is not something that is highlighted publicly as an issue which is causing ongoing mischief in society but that is not a reason to oppose legislation. This is the third time I have encountered legislation in the Seanad and I have always found it a very useful place to come. I was here a number of weeks ago when Senator Harmon introduced a Bill seeking to outlaw sex for rent, as it was referred to. It was a very sensible Bill and I have now included it within the criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill that I published last week.”
“We need to recognise that the reason we have insolvency laws is so that we allow people to get through that period where their company or business has, or they themselves personally have, become insolvent. However, we cannot have a situation where that hangs over somebody for the rest of their life. We need to create mechanisms to allow that to be dealt with appropriately and to allow individuals to move forward with their lives.”
“Notwithstanding that, I fully recognise that insolvency, on a personal basis, is something that is extremely challenging for individuals. I thank Senator Cathal Byrne for talking about access to credit. That is outside my responsibility, but it is an important point in that, given the free movement of capital and services are supposed to be fundamental principles of the European Union, it seems strange that citizens in one EU country cannot apply to avail of credit or mortgage services from another EU country. I thank Senator Dee Ryan for her contribution. Insolvency is a fact of life when it comes to business. Sometimes we are too critical or condemnatory of people whose businesses become insolvent.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis na Seanadóirí agus aontaím leo. I thank all the Senators who have contributed. I note what Senators Kelleher and Gallagher had to say in respect of the issue of insolvency. I agree it is really important that we have harmonisation across the EU when it comes to insolvency proceedings. If we are going to be able to do business with other countries within the EU without any barriers, it is very important we are able to have the same rules in order that we can apply insolvency laws in those same jurisdictions. I note what Senator Nicole Ryan said in respect of mortgage debts. The courts in Ireland, fortunately, are still very slow to order repossessions of properties. If the Senator compares Ireland with other countries, she will see we are extremely low within the European Union.”
“There are very many reasons we should opt in. First, these amendments and the recast insolvency regulation are an important and well established part of civil justice and co-operation between member states. Second, the regulation ensures a more coherent and predictable approach in cross-border insolvency cases. Third, the amending regulation is a useful, updating measure to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the recast insolvency directive throughout the EU. Since it is a regulation that concerns company insolvency, and so that colleagues and Senators are aware, I can confirm that my colleague, the Minister for enterprise, has noted this technical amendment and he supports the opt-in. It is desirable that Ireland opts in to this. It makes sense. It is a minor amendment to the insolvency regulation.”
“They have amended their domestic rules, rather, in terms of increasing the number of insolvency practitioners and the type of insolvency actions that are covered in insolvency in their countries. There is a minor change that is proposed to Annexes A and B. For instance, Slovakia wants to change the nature of the types of insolvency and wants to make changes in respect of insolvency practitioners. Similarly, six other countries want to change their arrangements. We think we should agree to the amendment. If we do not agree, it would make it difficult for us to collaborate with those other seven EU countries that have changed their laws in respect of insolvency. It makes sense that we recognise the need to amend the recast insolvency regulation. It also makes sense that we opt in to it. We cannot agree to those amendments unless we opt in.”
“We did so in 2015 under Protocol 21. The recast insolvency regulation contains two annexes, namely, Annexes A and B. If Senators look at Annexe A, they will see that it identifies the types of insolvency that obtain in each country in the European Union. When they look at Ireland - it is obviously listed alphabetically - they will see that the type of proceedings in Ireland covered by the regulation are those relating to the winding up of entities or bankruptcies. Annexe B deals with the type of insolvency practitioners that are authorised in member states. When Senators look at Ireland, the will see references to liquidators and official assignees. The reason the regulation is being amended is because Slovakia and six other EU countries have slightly amended their rules on EU insolvency.”
“The reason I am here is to seek approval from Seanad Éireann to allow Ireland to opt in to a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings to replace its Annexes A and B. I have a detailed speech, but I will give a succinct overview of what is involved to save Senators from having to listen to me for ten minutes. Essentially, what happened was that in 2015 the EU enacted a recast insolvency regulation. That regulation concerned judicial co-operation on a civil matter, namely insolvency because of that Ireland had to make a decision as to whether we should opt in or not. Due to the fact that it is an issue relating to insolvency and we recognise that there has to be co-operation between European Union states on the issue, we decided that we would opt in.”
“The reason there was a sunset clause in the legislation was in order to ensure that we could see how things progressed over time.”
“I also listened very carefully to Deputies Collins and Lawless, both of whom raised the issue of making outdoor seating rateable. They also referred to the issue of VAT for restaurants. While both are significant issues, they are not issues to which I can respond or resolve but I note the comments of the Deputies. Finally, Deputy Gogarty referred to the relationship that Irish people have with alcohol. It is certainly the case, unfortunately, that some people in Ireland have a toxic relationship with alcohol. We need to develop a more mature relationship with it and that is something that is increasing. In the context of the resolution that is going to be renewed, there is an opportunity for us to recognise that sunset clauses do have a particular benefit at times.”
“There is a benefit to non-alcoholic beers. They have transformed the drinking market. They have helped a lot of people who may have drink problems to be able to continue to socialise, to go out socially and drink non-alcoholic beer. I also listened to Deputy Gannon and agree that there have been great developments in respect of this area. He is right about Capel Street and the same applies in respect of South William Street and Drury Street. It has transformed not just Dublin city but other cities and towns. They have become much better as a result of people, including young people, out socialising in those towns and cities during the summer months. Dublin and other cities are great places for people to grow up and socialise in and we should facilitate that.”
“Deputy Kelly, as well as expressing his support for the proposed renewal of this legislation, also referred to the issue of children consuming non-alcoholic beer on licensed premises. The answer I gave him is technically the correct answer, which is that the prohibition does not apply to non-alcoholic beverages. However, being practical and as a parent, I would suggest that it is not really appropriate to be bringing children into pubs and then buying them non-alcoholic beer. We have a problem in this country with underage drinking. I do not know how this is categorised in terms of underage drinking of non-alcoholic beer in pubs. However, childhood is very short and we should try to protect children from a life of going to pubs and getting acquainted with drinking non-alcoholic drinks at a time when they should not be in pubs.”
“I have spoken to my colleagues, the Minister of State, Deputy Niamh Smyth, and Senator Robbie Gallagher and this morning I spoke to Councillor P.J. O'Hanlon in respect of it. I have discussed the matter with the chief superintendent in charge. I am aware that there is going to be an increased Garda presence. We also need to start looking at more use of CCTV cameras in our towns and villages. If it is the case, as the Deputy said, that individuals are renting out properties that are not habitable or do not comply with regulations, the local authority needs to enforce the law and ensure that they are brought before the courts. I want Deputy Carthy to be aware that I am aware of that issue and have acted in respect of it.”
“I hope to have the legislation that makes it permanent, the miscellaneous provisions Bill, enacted by that date. I cannot give a guarantee but I hope to have it enacted by then. As Members will be aware, there are all sorts of barriers, obstacles and requirements that have to be gone through in order for legislation to be introduced in the House and then to get through it. I have listened very carefully to what Deputies had to say. I have no objection to Deputies raising peripheral issues. Indeed, there seems to be great expertise in the House in terms of the raising of peripheral issues. Deputy Carthy raised the issue of towns and villages in Ireland. He specifically referred to Carrickmacross and I want him to know that I am aware of that issue.”
“I thank all Deputies for their contributions. There is general agreement in the House that outdoor seating is a good development from the point of view of the hospitality sector and the people who go to pubs and restaurants and like to sit outside. It is also fairly clear that there is broad recognition, including from myself, that the process by which we renew this for six months needs to come to an end at some stage through permanent legislation. That is why, I repeat, I am pleased to say that I got approval from Government earlier this week to introduce a miscellaneous provisions Bill, the civil law aspect of which will put on a permanent basis the entitlement of the hospitality sector to have seating outdoors. Once this is extended today it will mean that the practice remains lawful until 30 November of this year.”
“It allows licensees of such premises to conduct business and to operate in these outdoor seating areas. It is important to extend this operational period for another six months so the hospitality sector and the Garda will have certainty. This is what I am here to seek. I am asking for the support of the House to roll over this resolution for another six months. As I said, I hope this will be the last time I am here. It is dependent on me getting the criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill 2025 enacted by November. I cannot guarantee that but I hope it will be the case.”
“It will also be to the benefit of people who engage and go to restaurants or pubs and want to sit outside having drinks or food. It has transformed very many of our towns and cities. It has been a positive development. It is not often we get great weather in Ireland, but in fairness to the Irish people when we do get good weather we prefer to socialise outside, particularly if we are enjoying a libation or some food. It is also important from the perspective of An Garda Síochána that its members know what is happening outdoors in terms of hospitality is lawful. This is why the renewed resolution is important as well. The Government considers it to be in the public interest to provide for the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor in certain circumstances in seating areas located outside licensed premises.”
“I am here again seeking to have an extension to this sunset clause for another six months so the hospitality sector can continue to enjoy the benefits of outdoor hospitality. I hope this will be the last time that I or indeed any other Minister for Justice has to seek a resolution extending the sunset clause. It is probably the case that this will be the final or the penultimate extension sought by a Minister for Justice because earlier this week I secured leave from the Government to introduce and publish the general scheme of a criminal justice miscellaneous provisions Bill 2025. It will contain a provision that will in effect make permanent the provision we are seeking to renew here for another six months. I am asking that this measure be rolled over for another six months because it will be to the benefit of the hospitality sector.”
“It allowed the hospitality sector to continue to provide the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor in outdoor seating areas. The pandemic meant that much of the legislation enacted at that time contained what were referred to as sunset clauses. They were included because no one in this House or outside it knew when the pandemic was going to come to an end and when we would be able to revert to ordinary life. As a result, it was decided that the clauses could be renewed every six months by the Houses of the Oireachtas. As Members will be aware, those resolutions were effected and carried by both Houses of the Oireachtas in November 2021, May 2022, November 2022, May 2023, November 2023, May 2024 and October 2024.”
“It will be recalled, however, that during that pandemic significant legislation was introduced by this House to respond to the real challenges faced. One group that faced enormous challenges were those in the hospitality sector. Owners saw their businesses closed overnight. The pandemic had very serious consequences for them in terms of profits and just in terms of keeping their businesses going. Fortunately, though, the State entered into the equation and provided significant and worthwhile supports that kept many of those businesses going. A year after Covid was identified, significant and decent efforts were made to try to get businesses back to normal and everyone's lives back to normal. One of the mechanisms by which we dealt with that effort was the enactment in these Houses of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021.”
“I move: That Dáil Éireann resolves that the period of operation of sections 1 to 7 and 9 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 (No. 14 of 2021) be extended for a period of 6 months, beginning on the 1st day of June, 2025 and ending on the 30th day of November, 2025. Five years ago, we were all caught up in the events that arose from Covid. It had a remarkable impact, not just on the lives of Irish people but also in terms of the way business was done throughout the country. It also impacted the way business was done in this House. I do not look back on that time with any great enjoyment. It was a difficult time for the Irish people. It was also a difficult time for Members of the Oireachtas.”
“It would mean that they could not go into certain areas of a town or a city because of their repeated criminal behaviour. It is also a difficult problem because of the fact that this problem cannot be solved by just putting people in prison. We are talking about summary offences in terms of shop theft. In general, people do not receive a custodial sentence for summary offences so we need to look at a different mechanism. I thank the Chair for the time. I have listened very carefully to what Senators have said and, as I have said, we will not be opposing the Bill.”
“We need to try to take away the type of encouragement or attraction that arises in terms of people coming into certain shops. We need to examine what technology can do to deter individuals going into certain shops. Earlier today, I approved legislation to provide the Garda with greater resources in terms of facial recognition technology. We all use facial recognition technology on our phones for banking and issues like that. I believe we will have to consider using such technology to protect the retail sector. Similarly, and it is in the programme for Government, we will give consideration to introducing new laws in the public order legislation to suggest that a court would have the power to impose what we would refer to as a barring order on recidivist individuals involved in retail criminality.”
“I listened to their views and attended a meeting, which I suspect Senator Fitzpatrick also attended, in Fallon and Byrne before the election where I received a very graphic and uncensored account of what life is like for people who are working in the retail sector. I am also particularly attuned to the fact that there are very many people who are migrants working in the retail sector. Not only are they subject to the type of assault we are talking about here, but they are also, to be blunt, being subject to racial abuse, which is not permissible. We cannot allow it to stand as though it has been normalised. There needs to be a broader retail strategy. My Department is working on that. When we put together the retail strategy, there will be a recognition that there needs to be a co-ordinated approach across a whole series of sectors.”
“Also, if we are going to enact the legislation, we will have to expressly and clearly define what type of assault we are dealing with. Those are issues we can discuss in due course with Senator Fitzpatrick. I am sure other colleagues will be able to contribute to that. However, I wish to go back to the central issue that legislation alone will not solve this problem. Garda resources alone will not solve this problem. We really need a broader retail strategy. I am pleased to say that in the very near future I will meet representatives of the retail sector for the purpose of hearing their views.”
“People have an entitlement to know if they are covered by this legislation or not. As has been mentioned, assault is a criminal offence. Anyone who goes in and attacks a retail worker is guilty of assault. One way to approach this is the way it was dealt with in the hate offences Act enacted last year, which stated that if a person was convicted of an assault, it is a criminal offence but if the assault is motivated by hatred or something like that, there is an extra threshold put on top of it. Maybe a way of looking at this is if a person is convicted of an assault of certain workers fulfilling public duties, that should require a higher threshold. We do this in the most severe cases. We do it in circumstances where a member of An Garda Síochána is murdered. That is regarded as a different offence to any other offence of murder.”
“However, I think the defamation Bill that will go through, when enacted, will be of significant benefit. In regard to the legislation itself, I am supportive of it and the Government will not oppose it. There are aspects of the Bill I will need to discuss with Senator Fitzpatrick in terms of how it can be tightened up. The definition of "retail worker" will need to be tightened up. I know there were requests for other types of workers to be included. No matter who is included, if we are to have criminal legislation, we really need to know exactly who is covered by it. That area will be required to be tightened up. Similarly, in terms of "retail work", there will need to be an identification of what we are talking about in terms of the enactment of legislation. If we are to make certain behaviour criminal, we must know what it is.”
“No one will be able to create a situation where we do not have crime in our society, or where there is no retail theft or, regrettably on some occasions, retail assault. What we want to try to confront and combat are the instances where people who engage in that behaviour think they are immune to apprehension or prosecution. We cannot allow a situation to develop where something like that is normalised. It cannot be normalised. With regard to Senator Scahill's contribution, I repeat the point with regard to the defamation case. People who are challenged in shops by threats of defamation should fight those cases. The problem is if people do not fight the defamation cases and decide to just pay €5,000 to see the back of them, it is an encouragement to others.”
“Senator Stephenson said the root causes of crime are poverty and social exclusion. Sometimes that is the case but not always. When one examines the crimes of sexual offences, domestic violence and murder many of those are not motivated by poverty or social exclusion. Similarly, in terms of the offenders who come from areas of social deprivation, we must recognise a large number of people who also come from disadvantaged areas do not become involved in the type of harassment and criminality we discussed earlier. I thank Senator Costello for her contribution in respect of what is happening in Tallaght. There is a general desire for us to try to create an environment where people can feel safe.”
“We are both well aware of certain areas where a small number of people, who I am sorry to say are under 18 years of age, can create havoc in an area by just tormenting a shopkeeper. An Garda Síochána is part of the solution but not the only part. We really need to put more responsibility on parents as well to make sure that they have an idea where their children are and what they are up to and if they are up to wrongdoing that this is responded to. I listened closely to the comments by Senators Cosgrove and Stephenson. They mentioned many issues to do with the living wage and other matters to do with workers' rights. I will not wade into that since I am here to deal with a justice issue but I have no doubt that the Senators will make those points again to the relevant Minister in charge.”
“The last time I visited Templemore, 149 gardaí were attested. Two weeks after that, 200 people started in Templemore. This was the first time since 2019 that 200 or more recruits had started in Templemore. The recent recruitment campaign resulted in expressions of interest from 6,700 people. Recruitment is a challenge and it is my responsibility. We need to start encouraging more people to join An Garda Síochána. It is a great job and can be exciting. I would love to see more positive discussion not just from the body politic but from general society about how worthwhile it is to become a member of An Garda Síochána. I note what Senator Andrews said about the challenges faced by retailers. The Senator and I represent the same area of Dublin.”
“Where it will not be protected is if the shopkeeper is malicious in stopping somebody or is disproportionate in their response to the person. This could be using excessive force or falsely imprisoning somebody. These would not be permissible but a proportionate response is certainly acceptable. I also thank Senator Ryan for her comments on the offence itself. In many respects, I agree with the Senator that the absence is not the problem. We have a lot of offences on the Statute Book. Assault is, as Senator Andrews said, an offence in itself. Nonetheless, raising this issue here and sometimes highlighting an issue in legislation can have a significant effect. Senator Andrews raised the issue of concerns about the number of gardaí on the streets. We are trying to recruit more gardaí. It is difficult in an economy which has full employment.”
“People are not entitled to claim damages for defamation in response to a perfectly legitimate request by a shop owner to ask somebody if they can check whether or not the person has something on them. It is already provided for in the law but if there is any doubt about it, in the defamation Bill that I will be bringing through Committee Stage in the Dáil this evening, there will be a specific provision to provide legal protection to shopkeepers or retailers who stop a person and make a legitimate query regarding what the person has purchased or whether they have purchased it. Technically, it is referred to as a defence of qualified privilege. In reality, it means that it is an interaction that is perfectly legitimate and protected.”
“However, there was an issue the Senator and Senator Scahill raised regarding defamation. If a person who owns a shop thinks that a person has committed a shoplifting offence and they are walking out of the shop, the shop owner is perfectly entitled to stop that person and to say that they suspect the person of shoplifting. They are entitled to engage with the person and raise the issue with them. I am concerned about this. I have heard it from the two Senators and others that sometimes people feel they cannot do that because they will be subject to a defamation suit. If it has been the case that people have been sued for defamation because they made such an approach, they should fight their cases.”
“I particularly want to commend Assistant Garda Commissioner Paul Cleary, who has been instrumental in this and I have had discussions with him on it. It has been hugely supported by the public. We are in a very privileged position in Ireland where people want to see more gardaí on the streets. In some countries, people do not want to see members of the police force out there. In Ireland, people want to see more and more members of An Garda Síochána. This poses a challenge for me as Minister and for members of An Garda Síochána but it is a reflection of the high regard in which the service is held. I also thank Senator Murray for what she had to say about the situation she encountered in Meath. This is similar to what has been discussed by other Members.”
“I was sorry to hear about the experience his sons had in town. We have to fight back against the type of thuggery his sons were unfortunate enough to experience. Of course, a greater Garda presence will help, but we also need to recognise that as a society we should not allow the centre of our capital city to be dominated by that type of behaviour. I know gardaí have the primary and principal role to play, but all of us also have a responsibility in trying to take back the city from a small group of people who think they can get away with criminal behaviour because they think they are immune to apprehension, perhaps because of their age. I am also grateful for the comments in respect of the increased visibility of An Garda Síochána on the streets, which has happened.”
“That may be something we need to examine, but it indicates that there is a real challenge when that happens. When Senator Comyn referred to Drogheda, I thought of another difficulty that arose on a previous occasion and which, through a Garda investigation and resources, we managed to resolve. There was a big problem with gangland criminality in Drogheda many years ago. The Garda got on top of the issue and clamped down on it, and it was very effective in terms of what the force sought to achieve. There were marches there many years ago; I am sure the Senator was on them. I recall them well. It is an issue which is no longer bubbling up in our society. However, it shows a concerted and co-ordinated response can be very effective. I was also very impressed by what Senator Clonan had to say.”
“Senator Comyn was correct when she indicated that we should not need legislation for this when we have ordinary civility in society and people treat each other well. When there is respect for the integrity of the person, there should not be people attacking retail workers, let alone any other type of workers, in the commercial environment. Regrettably, it is the case that retail workers are subject to attacks and assault. It is also regrettably the case that in many instances such acts have been perpetrated by people under 18 years of age. That makes it a very difficult policy issue to respond to. In our legislation, we designate anyone under the age of 18 as a child and we have very specific rules as to how we deal with a child who comes before the criminal justice system.”
“On many occasions, whether from the Opposition or Government, if there are good proposals in a Bill I will not oppose it and I will want it to proceed. I did that a number of weeks ago when a very sensible Bill came from the Opposition in respect of seeking to prohibit sex for rent. That is something I am advancing. Similarly, in respect of Senator Fitzpatrick's proposal, I will not oppose it. There are a lot of good and sensible measures in it. It should form a central part of our response to a retail crime strategy. I was also very impressed by the contributions from Members. I would like to reply to the contributions made because they were worthwhile and the fact we are debating this in Seanad Éireann gives an overview of the seriousness with which the political system takes this issue.”