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 80 of 84.
“Simply by talking about it, raising it and copper-fastening the excellent work Ann Murphy has done in respect of it, we are playing a part in responding to it.”
“As has been mentioned by Senators Byrne and Wilson, the previous Government established Cuan, which played an important role in seeking to combat domestic and gender-based violence. This type of behaviour we are addressing today is a continuation of that. We introduced sexual offences legislation back in 2017. Having been established in legislation, we established Cuan last year. We need to ensure and send out a message that when we see this type of exploitative behaviour, we are going to respond to it. I agree with what Senator Higgins said that simply talking about this is having a beneficial impact. I know everyone in this House wants this legislation enacted as quickly as possible and I am clear on that.”
“It is something I am committed to acting upon. I must consider what is the best mechanism for me to ensure these provisions are enacted. Is it through Senator Harmon's Bill, which is to go through the Seanad, or is it through stand-alone legislation? That is something I am going to consider, and I will engage with Senator Harmon in respect of it. I do not view myself or the Department of Justice as having a monopoly on good ideas when it comes to the criminal justice system, but I will decide on which I think is going to be most effective in expediting the process. I refer generally to the importance in my Department of combating domestic, sexual and gender-based violence.”
“I am seeking to ask the Oireachtas to enact legislation that will prohibit this type of activity. I am early in my term and the Senators will have many opportunities to criticise me legitimately in the future if I am back in the House after a period and it has not been enacted, so they should feel free then to criticise me. I want them to know, however, that I am committed to its enactment. I also have to be careful that we do not have a situation where consensual relationships are in some way affected by this. That is not the intention of the legislation. I must be sure the legislation does not have that effect. It is part of the programme for Government. It is an essential legislative tool to illustrate that we are extremely serious in Ireland about combating domestic, sexual and gender-based violence.”
“It is unacceptable that someone would abuse his or her position by having access to accommodation and preying on a vulnerable person by seeking to extract sexual services from that person in exchange for accommodation. I accept the point that it is vague as to whether this is covered in our criminal law at present. It probably is not but we need to emphasise that at the centre of our sexual offences criminal legislation is the fact that there must be consent for any sexual activity. It is clearly the case that somebody has not consented if he or she is being coerced into providing sexual services to secure accommodation. That is something we need to be aware of. This Bill was before the Dáil on two previous occasions. I am not prepared just to make platitudinous virtuous comments commending Senator Harmon and leave it at that.”
“As Senators know, it is a fundamental value of the Irish legal and constitutional system that in order to hold people liable for the commission of criminal offences, there has to be precision in terms of what type of activity is prohibited. That is the reason I make that point on the difference between "sexual services" and "sexual activity". The advice from the Office of the Attorney General is that the Bill needs to be tightened up with regard to its provisions. It needs to be more precise. The last thing we want, I would have thought, is to enact legislation that is not precise enough and will have the effect of making it difficult to secure prosecutions. However, I fundamentally agree with the substance of the Bill. We need to address this appalling and exploitative behaviour.”
“Offence provisions that are impermissibly vague risk being found incompatible with the Constitution, as I am sure Senator Harmon knows. For the provisions in this Bill to be constitutionally sound, I am advised that it would be necessary to more clearly define the precise nature of the conduct that is to be criminalised. There are also some words or improvements that can be made, and I will put these out there for Senator Harmon's consideration. For example, the Long Title to the Bill uses the term "sexual services", and that term is defined in the interpretation section but it does not appear elsewhere in the Bill. The term "sexual activity", which is not defined, is used instead in key sections of the Bill, so there needs to be a harmonisation between "sexual services" and "sexual activity".”
“The drafting refers to the publication or distribution of an advertisement: for the letting of a dwelling in terms, circumstances or manner which gives rise to the reasonable inference— (a) that an engaging by the tenant in sexual activity with the landlord may be accepted in lieu of rent [or the rent amount may be reduced] ... What is unclear from the drafting is how the act of publication can have terms or how an advertisement can have a manner or circumstances. Another point in respect of precision is that the defence of innocent publication draws from the offence of publishing or distributing an advertisement to obtain sex in exchange for rent. Since what exactly is prohibited is not entirely clear, the defence provision may not be viable in this context.”
“The Bill states it will apply to a licence or a tenancy of a dwelling. As I understand it, "licence" is defined but "tenancy" is not and it seems that the intention is to provide that the meaning of a tenancy agreement includes a licence within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. However, the provision does not achieve its intended purpose due to the way it is constructed, taking into account that, by their very nature, a licence and a lease or tenancy agreement are different types of arrangements. We need a definition of "tenancy" within it. Another example of where the Bill could be improved refers to the parameters of the proposed offence of publishing or distributing an advertisement for the purposes of obtaining sex in exchange for rent.”
“People will say that a Minister can sometimes expedite legislation but, regrettably, legislation generally does not move very fast. However, I have heard loud and clear what has been said to me by Members of this House in terms of their desire to get this legislation enacted as quickly as possible. I will adopt whatever avenue I think is the fastest for the purpose of getting this legislation adopted. Like me, Senator Harmon is not proprietorial about this legislation. She, like everyone here, just wants to see the provision enacted. Whether it is done through her own Bill or a faster Government Bill, I know that it is Senator Harmon's objective is to get it enacted. I will identify a few points that have been brought to my attention by the Attorney General that will be of assistance.”
“That will then be of assistance to her in seeking to get this Bill through the rest of the Stages in the Seanad and when it comes to Dáil Éireann. I have to keep my mind open in terms of trying to expedite the process. I am conscious that everyone here wants to try to get legislation that has the effect of what is sought here enacted as soon as possible. One of things I have learned about being a Minister is that legislation takes time. I have tried to expedite legislation as much as possible, but to get legislation approved, I typically have to get a general scheme approved in the Department and by the Government. It then has to go to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Office of the Attorney General to have it drafted. It then comes back and I get approval for it to be brought to the Dáil.”
“It was for those reasons that, when the matter of Senator Harmon's Bill came before the Cabinet yesterday, I recommended that it not be opposed on Second Stage. I am pleased to say that that was fully endorsed by other Cabinet members. While the intention behind the Bill has merit, I have to point out that the Office of the Attorney General has advised that the Bill, in its current form, is not sufficiently precise with regard to the definition of the terms used in it, as well as the parameters of the offence, which the Attorney General advises could lead to unsuccessful prosecutions. I am not saying this for the purpose of trying to communicate bad news to Senator Harmon, but it is important that she be aware of what the concerns of the Office of the Attorney General are.”
“We have identified that there is a clear mischief there, and when we identify a mischief, in most instances the criminal justice system and the Oireachtas should move to try to outlaw and respond to it. I accept that this hurdle has been overcome and we need legislation in respect of this. It is also consistent with the aims of the programme for Government. Senators will be aware that, in the programme for Government, there is a commitment to criminalise those who seek sex in exchange for rent. It aligns with the strong commitment of the Government, and the excellent work that was done by my predecessor, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, to combat domestic and gender-based sexual violence.”
“We are all keenly aware of the issues around the availability of housing and the difficult position people can find themselves in as a result, and this Private Members' Bill seeks to address the seedier side of bad behaviour that can occur when what I suspect is a very small minority of landlords seek to take advantage of the high demand for accommodation. I am, however, aware of the level of distress that such an advance would cause to a tenant or potential tenant. It is instructive that there were so many organisations, such as the Union of Students in Ireland and the National Women's Council of Ireland, indicating that their representative organisations believed that this legislation was important and should be progressed. I also commend Ms Ann Murphy for the excellent work she did in highlighting this problem.”
“I hope that by indicating those concerns and how I believe there is a lack of precision, Senator Harmon will be able to introduce amendments at some stage to correct it. The first thing one has to do when looking at legislation is identify what the mischief is one is trying to address. It is clear that what we are seeking to address - and this has been identified by colleagues - is unscrupulous behaviour by landlords who use their advantage to prey on vulnerable people by coercing them into sexual acts in exchange for a place to live. As has been indicated by Senator Harmon, there is very clearly a power imbalance in a circumstance where there is somebody who is desperately keen to try to secure accommodation and a person who has the power of being able to grant secure accommodation.”
“The second offence is where a landlord or prospective landlord solicits or importunes sexual activity in lieu of rent or a reduction of rent. I suspect that may be even more common than the former, given the fact it is not in a formal advertisement, but somebody seeks to importune a vulnerable person by suggesting the person would get a reduction in rent, or free rent, by providing sexual services. Importantly, the Bill also provides for a defence of innocent publication for third-party publishers or advertisers. That is something that is common in many pieces of criminal justice legislation, and I fully agree with its intention and the protection it will provide. I wish to share with Senator Harmon and the rest of the Members of the Upper House my thoughts on the Bill, and then I will identify some concerns I have about it.”
“The first relates to the publishing or distributing of an advertisement that leads to a reasonable inference that engaging in sexual activity may be accepted in lieu of rent. It is commendable that we should seek to create such an offence and that the Oireachtas should seek to enact it. I am conscious of Senator Cathal Byrne's point that we do not want to cover circumstances that are benign and do not come within the very disreputable type of activity we are trying to prohibit in this legislation. It is important to note that a court would have to assess that the behaviour or the advertisement is giving rise to a reasonable inference. In any criminal prosecution, the case must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The combination of those two requirements will ensure what Senator Byrne is fearful of may not occur.”
“I say to Senators and to Members of the Lower House, to use Senator Wilson's term, that, as Minister for Justice, I will carefully read and examine legislation put forward in Private Members' time by Opposition Members that comes under the aegis of the Department of Justice. It is very clear what the Bill we are discussing seeks to do. As I indicated to Senator Harmon, the Government will not oppose it. I am conscious she and the other Senators who have spoken want to see more than that. They do not want a Minister simply to stand here making virtuous-sounding comments and then for nothing to happen in respect of the proposals in the legislation. The Bill seeks to create two offences.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir Harmon a scríobh an Bille agus leis na Seanadóirí eile as labhairt sa díospóireacht inniu. I thank Senator Harmon for going to the effort of putting together this legislation. I commend her and the other Members in her group on using Private Members' time for the purpose of progressing the Bill. As somebody who was a member of the Opposition for many years, I am aware of how precious and useful Private Members' time is. Sometimes, it can be more popularly deployed by putting forward something that is current in the media. I want Senator Harmon and other Senators to know that I think there is huge benefit in their putting forward legislation they have gone to the trouble of drafting. It requires significant work to prepare legislation.”
“I cannot do that, a Cheann Comhairle. Section 41 is a process and a procedure that is protected by confidentiality. It is a secret process whereby I am updated by the Garda Commissioner on issues he believes are important. Deputy Gannon mentioned that he wanted to see a different and improved Garda performance. I am pleased to say to the Deputy that there are performance regulations that will also be commenced tomorrow. I think they will improve matters. Deputy Stanley indicated that he wanted to see more gardaí on the street. Deputy Connolly referred to yesterday's issue. I repeat that we have Fiosrú in place and that is to deal with complaints. Finally, I note what Deputy Tóibín said. My view, however, is that the relationship between the public and members of An Garda Síochána is still very strong.”
“It is important that the Department of Justice retain a role in having oversight of An Garda Síochána in the way there is political oversight at present. Deputy Kelly also spoke about Garda culture. I believe the Garda culture is changing significantly from what it was at the time of the Morris tribunal. All these statutory bodies were put in place by the 2005 Act to a large extent because of the findings in the Morris tribunal. Deputy Kelly acknowledged that some of the issues he raised with me in the Chamber I then raised with the Garda Commissioner. Deputy Kelly also raised a series of other issues, some of which I have replied to through parliamentary questions. I have sought to do so. He asked me if I could state whether these issues had been brought to my attention by the Commissioner under section 41.”
“It generally is the case, I regret to say, that at the end of each year there are not sufficient moneys in place for awards to be paid out to persons who succeed before the tribunal. However, they all ultimately receive their money, even though that is delayed. Nonetheless, one of my political objectives is to put the criminal injuries compensation tribunal on a statutory basis. It is in the programme for Government. I cannot say that that will be done this year but it is something I want to see done during my term of office. Deputy Kelly mentioned that he would have done things differently in respect of the establishment of the new bodies. It is appropriate, however, that the Garda authority and the Garda Inspectorate have been merged. Deputy Kelly also raised issues in respect of the democratic oversight of the Garda.”
“I have stated to senior management in An Garda Síochána that what the public want to see is greater Garda visibility and I have asked for greater Garda visibility and more gardaí put on the street. We are beginning to see changes in that regard. Deputy Gannon referred to sections of his constituency. I think that at present the Deputy will see in his constituency greater visibility of gardaí. I would be interested to see if he will notice that over the next while. I am also conscious of what Deputy Carthy said about the new statutory bodies and the oversight bodies being put in place. I believe that the community safety partnerships will work and be effective. Deputy Carthy also raised the issues with the criminal injuries compensation tribunal.”
“It is the case around the world that it is appropriate that all police forces should not regulate themselves or decide on complaints against themselves. We have a proper statutory body in place to deal with any complaints if people wish to make complaints. A number of colleagues mentioned the issue of the absence of gardaí or that they wanted to see more gardaí on their streets. That is a consistent complaint by Members of this House. It reflects very positively on An Garda Síochána that people, whether they are in Galway, like Deputy Farrell, or in west Cork, like Deputy Collins, or in Laois, like Deputy Stanley, all want to see more gardaí on the streets. That is part of my political objective as well.”
“I thank Members for their contributions on this matter. I listened to their contributions carefully. On balance, when it comes to the reallocation of funding for the Votes that is required for the commencement of the legislation tomorrow, I do not think there is vigorous objection to the proposal that has been proposed. I have heard what Members have had to say in respect of many other issues. Deputies Farrell, Connolly, Stanley and Gannon all mentioned issues that arose outside these Houses yesterday. I am conscious of your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle, so I will not violate it. One of the bodies to be established tomorrow is Fiosrú. It is the body to which complaints are to be made if people allege misconduct against An Garda Síochána. We have structures in place to deal with complaints against members of An Garda Síochána.”
“As a consequence of the changes outlined, Vote 24, Department of Justice, will have a total allocation of €546.339 million for 2025. I commend this motion to the House and ask it to approve these necessary financial arrangements to support the imminent commencement of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024, the establishment of the policing and community safety authority and the reconstitution of GSOC as Fiosrú, the Office of the Police Ombudsman.”
“The total budget allocation for GSOC in 2025 of €20.667 million is proposed to be reallocated from Vote 24 to the new fiosrú Vote, Vote 46. In summary I am today asking the House to establish the new Vote 46 for fiosrú and to reallocate €20.67 million from Vote 24 to this new Vote 46. I am also asking the House to rename Vote 41 from the Policing Authority to An tÚdarás Póilíneachta agus Sábháilteachta Pobail, the Policing and Community Safety Authority, with the existing funding allocation of €4.636 million and to reallocate €1.522 million from Vote 24 to Vote 41 because of the merging of the functions of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate into the new authority. Vote 41 will have a total allocation of €6.158 million for 2025.”
“Deputies may recall that resolutions were passed in the Houses last July to recommend Ms Emily Logan, the current GSOC commissioner as the first Police Ombudsman, following an open public jobs competition. She will be formally appointed to this role by President Higgins tomorrow when the Act is commenced. The public jobs competition to recruit the deputy Police Ombudsman is under way and I aim to be back in the House in the coming weeks with the necessary resolution to take the recommendation for appointment of a successful candidate. To further reinforce its independence Fiosrú is being given greater financial independence through the establishment of its own Vote. Its new chief executive officer will be the Accounting Officer for that Vote. GSOC is currently funded from the Vote 24, the Department of Justice.”
“As already stated, the inspection functions of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate are being broadly merged into those of the new authority. Therefore, it is proposed to reallocate the inspectorate's funding allocation for 2025 from the Department of Justice Vote - Vote 24 - which amounts to €1.522 million, to Vote 41. As a result the total funding allocation for the Policing and Community Safety Authority for 2025 will be €6.158 million. The second body being established is Fiosrú, the Office of the Police Ombudsman. Part 5 of the Act reconstitutes GSOC as Fiosrú. The reformed police complaints body will also have an expanded remit and a new leadership structure. The current three-person commission is being replaced by single head of the organisation, the Police Ombudsman, supported by a deputy Police Ombudsman and a chief executive officer.”
“The authority will be responsible for overseeing and assessing, in an independent and transparent manner, the performance of An Garda Síochána as it relates to policing services. The objective is to support the effective provision and continuous improvement of such services to the benefit of the public's safety. It is also required to keep me, as Minister for Justice, informed of developments in respect of matters relating to policing services and to make recommendations to assist me in co-ordinating and developing policy in that regard. As Deputies will be aware, the current authority has its own Vote, namely Vote 41. What is being proposed is that the new Policing and Community Safety Authority will take over that Vote and the existing funding already in place for the Policing Authority for 2025. This amounts to €4.636 million.”
“It is important for me to say there are no additional moneys being allocated today from what was set out in the published Revised Estimates for 2025. Instead, we are reallocating some of those funds to the correct Votes in the justice sector group in line with what the Act provides for. I will now provide some detail on the two organisations we are dealing with. First, is the Policing and Community Safety Authority. That new authority is established under Part 4 of the Act, which also deals with the dissolution of the Policing Authority and the Garda Síochána Inspectorate. The oversight and inspection functions of these two bodies are being broadly merged into the new authority. This will strengthen and consolidate independent external oversight of An Garda Síochána.”
“Earlier today, my colleague the Minister, Deputy Chambers, received Government approval for the moving of this motion in the House to seek the approval of Members to establish the required Votes and make the necessary financial adjustments. This is vital to ensure that the necessary financial management and accounting arrangements are put in place for these new bodies from day one and that they have access to the necessary funds to enable them to carry out their important responsibilities and functions. Ordinarily, the Dáil would refer this matter to the justice committee for its consideration. As the committee is yet to be established, however, I am asking Deputies to approve this motion to ensure there is no delay in the commencement of the Act and the standing up of these bodies with their new and enhanced functions.”
“When I commence the Act tomorrow, we will have: a new Garda board; the Policing and Community Safety Authority, An tÚdarás Póilíneachta agus Sábháilteachta Pobail, which will replace the existing Policing Authority and the Garda Síochána Inspectorate; the Office of the Police Ombudsman, Fiosrú, which will be replacing the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC; a new office of the independent examiner of security legislation; and a new national office for community safety. To ensure that these new and reformed bodies can operate effectively and independently in the manner intended by the Oireachtas, we need to establish two new Votes for the Policing and Community Safety Authority, and Fiosrú, the Office of the Police Ombudsman. All of this will require some consequential changes to the Vote for the Department of Justice.”
“The Act provides an extensive new governance and accountability framework for policing and community safety and ultimately supports the work of An Garda Síochána and others to keep the people of this country safe. I am very pleased that we are able to introduce the necessary changes to ensure we have a modern and effective police service equipped for the times we live in but which also respects and upholds the traditions and service to the public and the community policing ethos on which it was founded.”
“Vote 46 — Fiosrú (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €20,667,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for the salaries and expenses of Fiosrú. Last week, I received Government approval to sign a series of statutory instruments required to support the commencement of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024. I intend to commence the Act tomorrow, 2 April 2025. This will give full effect to the legislation the Oireachtas last year to underpin the important recommendations made by the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland.”
“I move the following Revised Estimates: Vote 24 — Justice (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €546,339,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice, Probation Service staff and of certain other services including payments under cash - limited schemes administered by that Office, and payment of certain grants. Vote 41 — An tÚdarás Póilíneachta agus Sábháilteachta Pobail (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €6,158,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for the salaries and expenses of An tÚdarás Póilíneachta agus Sábháilteachta Pobail and for the payment of certain grants.”
“I am not attributing any blame to individuals as to why we do not have committees, but I will say this as Minister for Justice: there is a battalion of work that needs to be done, and I need committees there. I need Opposition spokespersons in committee holding me to account. I ask that we do that as quickly as possible.”
“I would hope at the end of this debate when there is a vote that people will accept the outcome of it because if we do not accept the outcome of votes in this Chamber, we are in a very different position to where we have been at any stage previously. Like other Deputies, I believe this row has gone on for too long. It needs to be brought to a conclusion. The way it should be brought to a conclusion is through the normal democratic process of a vote. I will ask members of the Opposition and, indeed, all Members of the House to accept the votes of the House. If there is a vote at the end of this process that goes one way, let us just abide by that vote and get on with our business.”
“I am also concerned that the Members who just recently got elected to this Dáil during the previous election may think that this is the normal way to behave; it is not. It is not normal, in my experience as a Member of Dáil Eireann for nine years, that people are shouted down. Another thing we have to be careful of is that the way we resolve contentious issues in this Chamber is to have a vote. We determine the issue by a vote. Many of us do not like the result of the vote. We were in opposition for many years and did not like the result of the vote, but if a vote is taken, that issue is determined. If we do not respect that vote, we are going to find ourselves in a difficult position.”
“The criticism from the Opposition is that the Ceann Comhairle did not take the vote. In fairness to her, if we go back to 22 January, the criticism of her at that stage was that she did not allow a vote to be taken. On both occasions, the one thing that was consistent was that there were efforts being made to shout down what was being said here in the Chamber. That is not a route down which we want to go. If we go down that route, we are going to find politics in this country becoming as toxic as they are in other countries. Everyone in the House knows there is a certain element of performativeness to what happens in this Chamber, but even if there is vigorous and abrasive debate, afterwards, we are still able to engage in a friendly manner with each other. That is something that is important and we should seek to try to retain it.”
“There is a responsibility on every Member of this House to make sure that it does not become a toxic place to work. I have been here for nine years. I have never found it a toxic place. I have found it a place where there is vigorous and abrasive debate within this Chamber, but it has always been respectful. However, what we saw on 22 January and last week was different. The reason it was different was because people were shouted down. I have no difficulty with or objection, and neither does anyone else in this House, to being heckled while making a speech. It is nearly part of the democratic process. However, when somebody is incapable or prevented from making a speech or running orders that are part of Dáil procedures, that is different, and that is what happened on 22 January and last week.”
“However, I commend An Garda Síochána on its recent success in Louth, where it seized drugs with an estimated value of €230,000 in Dunleer, and an estimated value of €1.9 million in an operation across Louth and Dublin. There is considerable work being done by An Garda Síochána in respect of apprehending criminals who are bringing drugs into the country. The work is ongoing in respect of what is happening in the Deputy's constituency of Louth. It is important that the Garda be resourced in respect of its constant campaign against drug trafficking. It has had considerable successes recently. Some of the larger cases going on in the Central Criminal Court relate to large amounts of drugs that have been seized by An Garda Síochána and that were being unlawfully imported into the country.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising the question on the numbers of gardaí in County Louth. I have been advised by An Garda Síochána that the numbers deployed tackling drug crime specifically cannot be shared for operational reasons. I commend An Garda Síochána on its excellent work yesterday or the day before when it apprehended a very large seizure of cocaine that was illegally and unlawfully brought into the country. That is a continuation of very considerable success that the Garda has had in recent years. There are currently 14,167 Garda members across the country, an increase of around 10% since 2015. Of this number, there are 364 Garda members assigned to stations in County Louth. As I said, for operational reasons the Garda does not want me to identify how many are working in the area of drug crime.”
“The method for us to make life easier for them is to try to remove any legislative obstacle that exists in respect of it. I will look at the legislation and discuss it with the Deputy.”
“If it is the case that the matter has to go to court and the consent cannot be obtained, for example, where the other parent has no involvement in the child’s life, I would have thought that a District Court judge would take that into account and recognise that there has to be some practical solution to the application that is being brought if the parent who is minding the child needs to get the authorisation of the other parent or guardian in order for some assessment to be carried out if that person is not available or is simply not interested in the child. I would think that most District Court judges would adopt a very sensible approach to that and recognise that the application being brought should be consented to. However, we should try to make life easier for people in difficult situations like that.”
“I would happy to talk to him in respect of that. Outside of changing the law, we are limited in what we can do in trying to get agreement or trying to ensure that the consent of both parents is not required. I suspect that does require legislative change. I would be interested in talking to the Deputy in respect of what that change could or should be.”
“The Deputy identified a good point in the context of where a child just needs a medical or educational assessment. If it is the case that the consent or agreement of both guardians is required, that can be very problematic. I accept the validity of what the Deputy says. There is the option available under section 11 of the guardianship Act that allows for an application to be made to the District Court, but parents should not be put to that expense, inconvenience and the level of time commitment involved in order to get a direction in respect of the welfare of their child. I will have a look at the legislation. I would appreciate if the Deputy would do so too. If there is a minor amendment that is required, I would be happy to sit down and discuss it with him if he would like to introduce it by way of a Private Members' Bill.”
“I would be interested to hear what the Deputy has to say in respect of proposals. I will consider whatever he does have to say.”
“The actions outlined in the strategy stress the centrality of children to many family justice matters and the need to ensure that their best interests are considered, in conjunction with their constitutional rights. This will be achieved through the implementation of over 50 actions across nine goals, with timelines for delivery up to the end of 2025. A number of these actions have already been completed and I would be pleased to provide further updates to the Deputy on this work as he requires. I am very conscious of what the Deputy has said about the difficulty that can arise in respect of where one parent is not involved and there is an obligation for permission from both parents. That can create significant difficulties, particularly when no involvement from the other parent is ongoing in the child’s life. This is a sensitive issue.”
“Section 31 of the Act sets out a wide range of factors that the court is required to take into account when determining the best interests of the child in such proceedings. In cases where difficulties arise from the absence of agreement between parents or guardians, for example in relation to health or education issues, or passport issues as the Deputy mentioned, section 11 of the Act allows for an application to be made to the District Court for a direction on a question affecting the welfare of the child. More generally, my Department is leading a programme of family justice reform as set out in the first family justice strategy, which focuses on the needs and rights of children and providing the assistance parents need when making decisions that affect all of the family.”