Matt Carthy
Cavan-Monaghan · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I move amendment No. 1: To insert after "on 2nd July, 2026": "and: further calls on the Government to provide that the Accommodation Recognition Payment (ARP) scheme shall apply only to: — existing recipients with respect to the beneficiaries of temporary protection currently benefitting from the scheme where those beneficiaries of tempor…”
“10 reads, "In page 5, line 31, after “section 2” to insert “or section 3”." Section 3 criminalises recording, sharing or publishing an intimate image without consent where it seriously interferes with a person's privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to them.”
“In terms of the legislation, as well as the breadth of the issues covered in the Bill, the other problem is the number of amendments the Minister has introduced on every Stage on new and unrelated matters that just have not been discussed in this House at all and will not get discussed here because of guillotines being applied and the Min…”
“It is not an additional punishment to be included on the register. As has been said, this is just about having a mechanism whereby the constitutional diktat that justice should be done in public is actually made available. This is not an additional punishment. It is actually a protection for others.”
“We must bear in mind that the vast majority of domestic violence offences and abuses never make their way to court. Most of them never result in a complaint. When complaints are made, most of them never see a file being sent to the DPP. Even when that happens, most of them never actually make it to court.”
“She made the point that when a woman, in the majority cases we are talking about women, goes to a Garda station to make a complaint about domestic violence you can virtually bet your life that it is not the first instance of domestic violence that she has encountered.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,467 lines we hold for Matt Carthy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 30.
“At the core of that vote in that referendum was the humanity of the Irish people and an understanding of why equality matters - something that reactionary Governments had lacked in preceding decades. We are proud of those who stood against discrimination during dark days and we are proud of those who continue to demand equality for all of our people today, including those from the LGBT+ communities. In particular, I welcome the fact that the Government has finally moved to provide for the disregard of historical convictions for homosexual activity. It should not have taken 33 years since decriminalisation to achieve this. It is further evidence that the work is not over and the aspiration of pride in, and equality for, all of our citizens remains unfinished business.”
“The pervasive influence of the Catholic Church hierarchy reinforced stigma, censorship and silence around homosexuality. Before decriminalisation, many gay people lived hidden lives under shame, isolation and criminalisation. This had serious mental health and indeed, often tragic outcomes. Many gay people, like others who faced discrimination, just left what they considered to be a suffocating State to build lives elsewhere. I remember when I attended my first Pride parade in Dublin in 1997, there was still a sense of repression and isolation. It is right then, that at Pride we celebrate how far we have come from the dark days when Government Ministers dismissed any suggestions of law reforms, to the point where we had a successful referendum on the recognition of same-sex marriage.”
“The Sinn Féin Ernie O’Malley Cumann from Drumcondra was part of that very first Pride protest in 1983, when activists marched to Fairview Park where Declan Flynn was killed. It was another ten years before homosexual acts were decriminalised and the Government only acted then having being forced to do so and having been dragged to the European courts. The reality, not always acknowledged, is that the reactionary Irish State was a harsh place for far too many people, particularly anyone who was different; as I said, gay people, single mothers, victims of abuse, those with mental health struggles and those from deprived communities. From partition to 1983, the Irish State treated gay people as criminals and outcasts. Male homosexual acts were illegal under laws inherited from Britain.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt ag an díospóireacht seo. Pride, it is important to remember, emerged from repression, as a movement for equality. It is important that we celebrate all those who stood up and fought for change during periods when it was not easy to do so. In Ireland and in this State, Pride emerged as a response to what was, for much of our history, a conservative and reactionary State that was hostile in the extreme to anybody who was perceived as different, particularly gay people but also often women, working-class communities, republicans, and left-wing activists. Pride emerged from the horrific, homophobic murder of Declan Flynn in 1983, which rightly caused widespread revulsion.”
“We need urgent action to reduce orthodontic and dental waiting lists. We need investment in public dental services, a dedicated public-only dental contract and workforce planning. We must ensure dental places in our universities are being utilised by those we can encourage to work in the domestic system, rather than being sold to international students to make up for the shortfall in Government funding for the third level sector. We need a dental treatment service that actually works for the people it is supposed to serve.”
“People feel they must contact local politicians because their child needs braces or other healthcare. This is the scenario that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have allowed to develop. Many people stretch themselves to access private treatment. A whole cohort of others just cannot afford that option and feel they are letting down their children. In fact, it is the Government that is letting them down. There are staffing issues in Monaghan, with vacancies in the local dental service for dental hygienists, general surgeons and dental nurses. All of those vacancies have been in place for a prolonged period. Then there is the situation at Dundalk hospital for the children who are referred there. We might as well tell them they will not receive the orthopaedic care they need. This cannot stand.”
“Sinn Féin has brought forward this motion because the Government simply refused to understand that dental care is an essential part of healthcare. Across the State, particularly in counties like Cavan and Monaghan, families are being failed by a dental service that is stretched beyond capacity. State-wide, as colleagues have outlined, thousands of people, mostly children, are waiting for dental or orthodontic treatment, with a significant proportion waiting well over a year. Many children are leaving primary school without ever receiving the dental screening to which they are entitled. All of these numbers represent real children and families. In my constituency, parents contact me in utter desperation and frustration because their children are waiting years for orthodontic treatment.”
“The Government should be held to account to ensure the recommendations of the independent review group are implemented without further delay. That is why I tabled an amendment to the motions. I urge all Members of this House to support the Sinn Féin amendment. In time, Sinn Féin will introduce legislation to force the Government to act. When talking about the Special Criminal Court and Offences Against the State Act, it is noteworthy that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Sallins case. It is way beyond time the people involved in that case received the truth and justice for which they have been campaigning for the past five decades.”
“Interventions to prevent young people being dragged into crime, investing in communities and diversion and putting enough community gardaí on our streets are all equally important. We know young people who get involved in organised crime are often groomed to be involved at a very young age. Preventable intervention at this age is crucial. We also need to ensure we have proper garda visibility in all communities. What we have seen since the Minister, Deputy Jim' O'Callaghan, took office can give us very little confidence that the long-overdue overhaul of the Offences Against the State Act will be acted upon. If we are to take the Minister of State's speech today, this Government has no intention of moving on this area.”
“The debate on the motions before the Dáil today do not take place in a vacuum. While robust legislation is required to deal with the threat of modern, sophisticated organised crime, as I said earlier, the battle against such criminals starts in the community and on our streets. The criminal justice system must be adequately resourced and equipped to tackle organised crime. In addition to the failure to deal with the issue of the Offences Against the State Act since taking office, the Minister has done very little to deal with the recruitment and retention crisis in the Garda. The failure to tackle this crisis means we simply do not have enough gardaí for crucial tasks which are the bedrock of crime prevention such as community policing.”
“The Law Reform Commission in 2013 recommended a number of steps that could be taken to give greater protection to juries, including the creation of a stand-alone offence of jury tampering. In our submission to the independent review group, Sinn Féin called for the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in relation to the protection of jurors to be implemented and the practices of other jurisdictions to be examined with a view to adopting the best practice in line with international standards to protect juries. The independent review group on the Offences Against the State Act also called for this to be done. There is no reason for ongoing delays in doing so. I would like to see the Minister bring forward proposals on this issue in line with what the Law Reform Commission and the independent review group proposed.”
“The UN committee also pointed to the fact that the DPP was under no obligation to provide reasons for its decision. It is my view and Sinn Féin's that the legislation to give effect to the independent review should also include a higher bar than what was recommended in the majority report for a non-jury trial. The legislation should include a requirement of evidence of real and present danger that jury tampering would take place. Jury tampering is often cited as the reason for special courts. While it is a real concern, the argument is a little hollow if no action is taken to protect juries. The right to a trial by jury should be protected except in exceptional circumstances. To protect that fundamental right, we need to protect jurors.”
“I have said, and I will repeat, I want to work constructively with the Minister on this but we can only do that if we get some movement or real clarity of intention on the part of the Minister. We in Sinn Féin have argued that the legislation should stipulate that the courts be provided with the power to decide on whether a non-jury trial should take place rather than the DPP as proposed in the majority report. The Special Criminal Court was criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2001. Central to that criticism was the failure of the Irish Government to demonstrate that the decision of the DPP to certify that the applicant be tried by the Special Criminal Court was based on reasonable and objective grounds.”
“In our submission to the independent review of the Offences Against the State Act, Sinn Féin called for a number of things, specifically, an end to the Offences Against the State Act, an end to emergency legislation and the replacement of the current Special Criminal Court with a new, non-jury human rights-compliant system. The independent review group recommended that the Offences Against the State Act be abolished in its entirety with a majority recommending a new non-jury trial replace the Special Criminal Court to trial serious offences for which a threshold has been reached. It is unacceptable we are not seeing any movement on the implementation of these proposals.”
“That was in 2002; here we are in 2026 and of course those recommendations were never implemented. That is the crux of the problem. There is little confidence based on the track record and on the Minister of State's statement today that the Government will actually deal with this issue. There is a real concern with the level of delay and inaction we have seen that the independent review will similarly end up on a shelf somewhere to be cited in 20 years' time by whoever replaces us in these Houses if there is a continuation of the go-slow Governments we have had to date.”
“Logically, the time to deal with this would have been in the immediate aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement. Many would have expected it to be the case. To remind Members of the House what the Good Friday Agreement said, specifically referencing the use of emergency legislation, it said that the Irish Government will "initiate a wide-ranging review of the Offences against the State Acts with a view to both reform and dispensing with those elements no longer required as circumstances permit". Following the Good Friday Agreement, the Hederman committee chaired by a former Supreme Court justice conducted a review of the Offences Against the State Act published in August 2002. Its recommendations included new legislation and the repeal of existing legislation. Does that sound familiar?”
“These are circumstances and situations that bear no relation to the situation when the legislation was first introduced. We are approaching 90 years since the Offences Against the State Act was initially introduced. The legislation has moved significantly from its original intention. These emergency power legislations were expanded with the creation of the Special Criminal Court in 1972 and then further expansions of the Act in 1998 following the Omagh bomb. The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 was enacted to put in place certain additional legislative measures to tackle organised crime. What we have had is successive Governments repeatedly dragging their feet on dealing with this issue, despite that there is widespread criticism, both domestically and internationally,of the continuation of the Offences Against the State Acts.”
“That emergency legislation should not be used on an ongoing basis is without question. Just think about what we do here. On an annual basis, we renew emergency legislation. We have been doing that for decades. We need a modern legal framework to effectively address organised crime and to properly protect jurors. There are serious issues in relation to organised crime that our courts and gardaí must be empowered to tackle. We are all in agreement on that. Recently, we have seen activities in respect of the Kinahan gang. We saw the recent incident involving a Swedish contract killer who died in Limerick. We need a sophisticated modern legal system to deal with organised crime, not outdated legislation that needs to be renewed on an annual basis.”
“To remind the House, the independent review group publication in 2023 recommended that the Offences Against the State Act be abolished in its entirety, with a majority recommending that a new non-jury court replace the Special Criminal Court to try serious criminal offences for which a threshold has been reached. Sinn Féin has repeatedly called for the proposals of this report to be implemented and for legislation to be brought forward. As the Government has not acted and shows no sign that it is going to act, I wish to inform the House that I, along with my colleague, Deputy Mark Ward, will be introducing a Bill complied in conjunction with the OPLA to compel the Government to act on the independent review. That the Offences Against the State Acts are outdated is undisputed.”
“I am beginning to wonder if the Minister has any intention of dealing with this issue during his term of office. That is why it is disappointing that we are back here once again renewing provisions in an Act which we know, because the expert committee we established told us so, should have been replaced a long time ago. Last year, the Government belatedly acknowledged that the offences against the State legislation had to be overhauled, but it is three years now since the publication of the independent review on the Offences Against the State Acts that was chaired by Mr. Justice Michael Peart. There has been absolutely no progress in the time since. In fact, we have probably moved backwards over the past 12 months.”
“Not only has there not been any progress, the prospect of movement to implement the proposals of the independent review seems further away than ever. When the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, who, for the second year in a row, is not here to discuss this motion, first came into office we were told to expect some proposals to be brought forward by the end of last year. When I asked again recently by way of parliamentary question, no indicative timetable could be given. In the Minister of State's speech, she left it until the very end and, within that, there were just two paragraphs where there was any reference to the independent report that was commissioned by the Government at a large expense to the taxpayer. Now, she is saying that the Minister will return in due course. It is as clear as absolute mud.”
“I move amendment No. 1: To insert the following after "ending on 29th June, 2027": "; and — calls on the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to bring forward legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review Group without further delay.". Tá díomá orm go bhfuil muid ag filleadh ar ais arís anseo ag athnuachan cumhachtaí éigeandála agus reachtaíochta atá as dáta. Ba cheart go ndéileálfadh an Rialtas leis seo roimhe seo. It is disappointing that we are back here once again renewing emergency powers and outdated legislation. Promised proposals on this matter have not been delivered and it seems that Government is either incapable or unwilling to deliver them.”
“There is chaos reigning in our courts as thousands of cases are being adjourned due to the withdrawal of services by legal aid solicitors. The Government and the Minister are responsible for further backlogging the legal system and for creating havoc for many of the people involved in these cases, including victims. There should be a Dáil debate this week on the proposed changes to the criminal legal aid scheme. Most importantly, the Government and the Minister need to immediately engage with stakeholders and then bring forward viable, workable proposals that deliver the value for money and that reduce the court adjournments but also ensures there is access to justice for everyone who needs it.”
“Yes, this will be a democratic decision in that Members will vote on it, but nobody can argue in any way that there has been democratic consideration, accountability and discussion in respect of this motion. That absolutely has not happened.”
“However, game clubs and hunting organisations, for example, have highlighted to us that when previous Governments signed us up under Article 4 to firearms legislation at EU level, there was no consideration for the impact on those types of local organisations and, subsequently, no real engagement on the part of the Department. I will be voting against this motion. I do so on the basis of standing up for the rights of the Houses of the Oireachtas to have full and proper consideration of these matters, not to be subjected to a rubber-stamping exercise and not to be treated with what I consider to be absolute and utter disdain in terms of proper accountability. The Minister of State can say these are democratic decisions.”
“That is what has been provided to the Oireachtas by way of considered deliberation by the Department by way of briefing and then we are being asked at short notice to opt in under Article 3 and trust the Ministers to have our back as a state in EU negotiations. It does not matter after that whether they do have our backs, because we are locked in anyway. This is not at all the way to do business. There is a particular issue when it comes to firearms. When we are dealing with terrorism and serious firearms trafficking, I fully accept there is a need for, and merit in, operating on an EU basis.”
“It is absolutely the case that combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences could be one of them but that should be done on the basis of considered discussion in this House. That should have been done as a result of debates at the Oireachtas joint committee on justice in the first instance where we have thoughtful detailed conversations as to what precisely it means for Ireland to opt in, what provisions of sovereignty precisely are being handed over and what the value for this State is in handing over that sovereignty, then a considered debate in this House and then moving forward, but instead what happens is decisions are made behind closed doors to opt in. I have the briefing note here.”
“He has given up opt-outs where we have always had them and opted in and he is increasingly using Article 3 rather than Article 4, which was the primary mechanism used by previous Governments to sign up. This is all too familiar. We saw the furore in recent weeks when members of the public became aware in respect of the EU migration and asylum pact that we are locked in not only through this Government but future governments to an EU framework that takes no account of the unique circumstances and challenges that this particular island nation, divided as it is, faces. In the Seanad earlier, the Minister misrepresented, or at least misunderstood, Sinn Féin's position because we have always acknowledged that there are areas where there is a need for EU collaboration.”
“Of course, the Government will cite that Article 3 brings us to the table, allows us to be part of the deliberations and the decision-making process but it also forces us to accept whatever decision is made, even if we oppose it and are in a minority in a qualified majority voting situation. Two questions arise from that. Do we have faith in the Ministers to defend and fight for the positions of the Oireachtas behind closed doors when they treat the Oireachtas with such contempt on an ongoing basis in relation to these motions? Do we trust the Minister at a time he is signing us up under protocol 21 to probably the greatest number of EU proposals ever?”
“She stated this is because of the pressures of Article 3 of protocol 21 and it is important that we go back to the basis of where protocol 21 came from. It provided an opt-out for Ireland and Britain at the time in respect of matters concerning security, freedom and of that nature. There are two provisions in it. The first, Article 3, that the Minister of State cites, essentially allows the Government to opt in at an early stage of the deliberative process and within which comes a very tight deadline, but I am astounded that her contribution never mentioned Article 4 because Article 4 provides a different mechanism for Ireland to opt in, if that is the considered view of the Government and the Houses of the Oireachtas. That allows us to sign in at any stage after the enactment of the proposal.”
“The briefing note circulated by the Department highlights the particular urgency and lists 23 June, less than a week from now, as the deadline. That is the timeframe the Houses have to consider it. The Minister might consider me to be naive but I would have thought that the purpose of debates in this House was to scrutinise proposals, identify issues and suggest improvements or other beneficial courses of action, but the truth of the matter is that these motions have become a rubber-stamping exercise that have become the hallmark of how he approaches this. The least that the Houses of the Oireachtas deserve is an adequate timeline. I am told that for all the lack of notice we got in this House, the Seanad was give 24 hours' notice in respect of this motion. The Minister of State referred to the deadline of 23 June.”
“I am sure the Government has no hesitation at all. There is a serious issue in terms of how the Minister for justice is dealing with some incredibly important Bills that will have implications for years to come, and that is his inability to engage with the Houses of the Oireachtas regarding EU matters in a timely manner. I have lost count of the number of times that a Minister from the Department of justice has come in here with a proposal and said that time is of the essence and we have to adopt it within the following number of weeks. The question is: whose fault is that? It is certainly not the fault of Opposition Members who are told that there is an urgency. This is particularly the case with this proposal.”
“If Tusla decides that in that situation, where the person who killed the other parent should remain the guardian and will not even bring the matter before a court for decision, the family of the deceased person should be told why. It is not too much to ask and that is why I am pressing the amendment.”
“There is not much to say because we have argued this out in relation to all the amendments. The Minister is particularly wrong in this case. Consider a scenario in which a parent of a child has murdered or killed another parent of a child. They are in law currently considered to be guardians. There is now a provision where Tusla can apply to the courts to have that guardianship removed. For cases that predate the passage of this legislation, there is a level of discretion involved as to whether Tusla will bring such cases. This amendment simply seeks to allow family members of the deceased parent to make an application or a request of Tusla to bring it forward.”
“Equally important, in terms of the amendment we have put forward, is the provision that, if a decision is made not to pursue it, at least the rationale for that decision would be notified because that would resolve a question mark or concern on the part of those affected. I encourage the Minister to accept the amendment.”
“This amendment recognises that guardians ad litem , other guardians and relatives should have a role in prompting action where it is in the child's best interests. This is particularly important considering Tusla has raised concerns about resourcing and identifying historical cases. It is, therefore, essential that those closest to the child can bring matters forward and ensure appropriate applications are made to the court. The Minister previously indicated that people can contact Tusla anyway and that a provision in legislation is not needed. That is not necessarily an argument for not doing something. There is a strong case to put on a legislative basis that people can engage with Tusla to ensure there is, in the first instance, consideration of any such request.”
“This is another amendment we discussed at length on Committee Stage and I was hopeful the Minister would bring forward his own amendment to deal with this issue. As discussed, this deals with historical cases. As it stands, the section gives Tusla discretion in dealing with convictions that occurred before the Act commenced. The Minister made quite a lot of reference on Committee Stage to the fact that this is peculiar - I am not sure it is entirely unique - in that it has a retrospective element. That is important and I commend the Minister and Department on including it. However, without strengthening the provision to include other parties, as this amendment seeks to do, there is a risk that there will be cases where applications will not be brought where they should be.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 12, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(1A) Where a guardian ad litem of the child, another guardian of the child, or a relative of the child (being a person who would be entitled to notice of proceedings under this Act) is of the opinion that an application under subsection (1) ought to be made in the best interests of the child, he or she may request the Child and Family Agency to make such an application. (1B) The Child and Family Agency shall consider any request under subsection (1A) and, where it decides not to make an application under subsection (1), shall, on request, provide reasons for that decision to the person who made the request.”.”
“The answer, therefore, is not to leave things as they are but to find a solution. As with all of these amendments, if there is a middle road to be found, I am quite happy to travel there. It appears that the Minister does not want to accept the amendment. He starts from that position and then finds whatever reason he can to build up to what might appear to be a logical argument against it. The real logic of the fact is that we have had situations where court cases involving the well-being of children have not been notified to people who, probably more than anybody, have the care of those children at heart. That needs to be rectified, whether in this legislation or another piece of legislation. I am arguing that now is the time to do that.”
“The Minister again, purposely or otherwise, has missed the point. This amendment was brought forward not because it was something that I wanted to bring forward. I brought it forward because the affected families pointed out to us that this is an anomaly. They have not been made notice parties or have not been informed at all, or have had to fight and battle with Tusla to have any say whatsoever about the care of a child that they love. They feel strongly that the legislation, as currently worded, does not cater for that. It is for that reason that this amendment was put forward. I take it that the Minister has issues with the wording we put forward but I hope he will accept our bona fides in saying that there are legitimate concerns that the Government's legislation does not fully address this issue.”
“It is crucially and critically important that we do not have a situation where there is a court hearing in respect of a case involving a child where the family of the deceased person is not a notice party or perhaps is not even aware that the case is before the court. I appeal to the Minister to either agree to this wording or agree to find a formula of words that will meet the same purpose.”
“If he feels there is a better formula of wording, we have been very clear that we are open to that. This is about ensuring families are notified. We should remember that we are talking about families who have lost a loved one in the most cruel circumstances by murder or manslaughter. They have a vested interest in the well-being of the child in relation to whom a court order is applied for. I do not believe notifying them is too much to ask for. We asked Tusla when its representatives appeared before the committee about their approach to these matters and they were not forthcoming in giving the committee a sense of how the agency currently approaches the issue.”
“This amendment ensures that all relevant parties, including the next of kin of a deceased guardian, would be notified of court applications affecting a child. It is important that the family of a guardian who has been killed be made a notice party in proceedings. Such a family have a clear and legitimate interest in the child's welfare, and that role should be recognised, respected and reflected in the process. We discussed this at length on Committee Stage and the Minister did not accept our amendment of the basis that "next of kin" was not defined in the legislation, but the meaning of "next of kin" is quite clear, as is how that would be applied in real terms before a court. It is for this reason that we tabled the amendment again on Report Stage. I ask the Minister to accept it.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 11, lines 29 to 32, to delete all words from and including "(1) An" in line 29 down to and including line 32 and substitute the following: "(1) An application to the court for an order under this Part shall not be made in relation to the child concerned other than on notice to— (a) each guardian of that child (including a victim guardian within the meaning of section 12D), and (b) the next of kin of a deceased guardian of that child, where that deceased guardian died as a result of an offence referred to in section 12C(1); provided that a person shall not be regarded as next of kin for the purposes of this paragraph if that person has been convicted of that offence,".”
“1 is probably going to be the only one on this legislation, which has cross-party support and will be known as Valerie's law because of the campaigning efforts of David French, who has brought us all to this point. It is appropriate, seeing that we are all in this House, to acknowledge David and his family.”
“(b) In determining whether paragraph (a) applies, the court shall have regard to— (i) any findings of fact made in the criminal proceedings, (ii) any evidence of domestic violence, including patterns of coercive control, and (iii) the best interests of the child concerned. (c) Where paragraph (a) applies, the Child and Family Agency shall not be required to make an application under subsection (1), unless the Agency is satisfied that, notwithstanding those circumstances, there is a risk to the safety or welfare of the child concerned. (d) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the court from making an order under subsection (3) where it is satisfied that such an order is necessary and proportionate to protect the safety or welfare of the child concerned.". In moving amendment No. 2, I am conscious that the vote on amendment No.”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: "(8)(a) Notwithstanding subsections (1) to (7), this section shall not apply, or shall apply with such modifications as the court considers appropriate, in a case where the convicted guardian was convicted of manslaughter and the court is satisfied that— (i) the act giving rise to the conviction was committed in self-defence, or (ii) at the time of the commission of the offence, the convicted guardian had been subjected to domestic violence (within the meaning of the Domestic Violence Act 2018) by the deceased guardian, and the offence occurred in circumstances materially connected to that history of domestic violence.”
“They will make a judgment call. We could have a situation where somebody who is convicted of murdering a parent remains the guardian of the children, where an individual or a small group of individuals in Tusla think this is okay but any other reasonable person outside of that organisation might consider it not to be okay. There is no mechanism in this law for anybody else to make this application. It is not possible for a garda, other family members or interested parties in terms of the well-being of the child. This to me is a lacuna in the law and more than is the case with any of the other amendments, should we get to a point where we could agree to this alone, we would have much stronger legislation that would have a much clearer impetus and support of all concerned.”
“I will make a couple of points. In respect of the three-month provision included in my amendment, I want to restate clearly, as I did to the Minister on Committee Stage, that if this was the big stumbling block I would have quite happily accepted his suggestion to increase the time. To me this is a red herring because it is clearly on the record of the House that there is a willingness to accept it. I do not accept his other arguments in respect of the broader issue here, which is the ability of a single agency. Tusla has told the Oireachtas justice committee this will mean that ultimately it will be down to the call of a single social worker, somebody who in 90% of cases, if not 99.9% of cases, will have the best interests of the child at heart, or at least what they consider to be the best interests of the child at heart.”
“That is unfair and it goes against the spirit of everything the Minister has quite rightly said in terms of the importance of this legislation.”