Sharon Keogan
Industrial and Commercial Panel · Independent · Ireland
“The future of European border security is being decided right row at the European Commission. It is currently drafting the renewed mandate of Frontex, the EU border police force. As Ireland holds the rotating EU Presidency, the Minister for justice cannot simply pose as a disinterested broker while our European borders are compromised.”
“Holding the EU Presidency gives this Government massive agenda-setting leverage at the Council of Ministers. The Minister must use this chairing power to strip out counterproductive rights promotion provisions. Under the guise of good intentions, these provisions and their enforcers have defanged and undermined Frontex.”
“I thank the Minister, Deputy Calleary, and I appreciate that he will engage with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, on this. We live in the land of technology.”
“The Minister, Deputy Calleary, is welcome to the House. I rise to focus the attention of the House on a vital public service that sits at the very heart of social inclusion on this island, the free travel scheme.”
“Sitting down with Stormont to deliver a single unified rule book for free travel means we lift everyone to the same high standards of dignity and mobility, ensuring that a person's vulnerability is not penalised simply because of the jurisdiction they happen to live in.”
“It will point to the senior pass scheme, where a resident here can apply for a separate concessionary card to travel into the North. Let us be completely honest with ourselves.”
The complete record
Every one of 772 lines we hold for Sharon Keogan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 16.
“We need a highly effective, technologically advanced border policing force. If this Government wants to prove its tough stance on migration in real terms, it must use its unique presidential powers to push these common-sense governmental reforms onto the Brussels negotiation table. I also want to second the comments made by Senator Mullen on the death of Ann Widdicombe. It is a dark day for all those who serve in public office.”
“Holding the EU Presidency gives this Government massive agenda-setting leverage at the Council of Ministers. The Minister must use this chairing power to strip out counterproductive rights promotion provisions. Under the guise of good intentions, these provisions and their enforcers have defanged and undermined Frontex. We must stop internal activists from harassing front-line border guards who are simply trying to enforce our laws. Furthermore, we must demand an end to bureaucratic data-protecting red tape. It is absurd that Frontex is blocked from sharing critical human trafficking intelligence directly with Europol or national police forces. The Minister should use Ireland's platform to mandate seamless intelligence sharing and expand offshore third country return hubs. We do not need a bloated, humanitarian NGO.”
“The future of European border security is being decided right row at the European Commission. It is currently drafting the renewed mandate of Frontex, the EU border police force. As Ireland holds the rotating EU Presidency, the Minister for justice cannot simply pose as a disinterested broker while our European borders are compromised. We must proactively shape this agenda. It is worth noting that the Government pushed ahead with committing Ireland to the EU migration pact, despite widespread national sovereignty reservations from both Houses, on the ground that the EU approach would be better. Added to this, we now have Ministers posturing before the electorate as they try to project a tough stance on migration. They must put their actions where their rhetoric is, and they must do so on the EU level they have signed our nation to.”
“The current set-up is a bureaucratic hurdle, not a solution. A solution could be found to this quite easily and I hope the Minister will engage with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, to find that. I thank the Minister for coming in today.”
“I thank the Minister, Deputy Calleary, and I appreciate that he will engage with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, on this. We live in the land of technology. We are told that we are a tech nation and the idea that it would require an agreement and would be a little bit difficult to have this IT system put in place quickly seems a little bit ridiculous. It is something that can be overcome easily. The reality on the ground is that a partnership should not require an older person to fill out an entire separate cross-Border application form, submit a passport photograph and wait for weeks just to get a separate piece of plastic. If the technology exists to recognise contactless bank cards instantly across Europe, our transport networks can absolutely recognise a single public service card across our one island.”
“If our transport geometry is inherently cross-Border, our ticketing and free travel system must be exactly the same. If the Government is genuinely committed to shared island initiatives, we must move past these clunky, outdated systems. An all-Ireland approach should be a default setting for public services, not an afterthought. We need a modern, integrated framework, where a free travel pass issued in Cork, Galway or Dublin can be tapped in Dublin on a train or bus ready for Belfast, Derry or Enniskillen. There should be no separate applications, additional passes or bureaucratic headaches. I urge the Minister to demonstrate real leadership and to initiative immediate feasibility talks on the matter.”
“Sitting down with Stormont to deliver a single unified rule book for free travel means we lift everyone to the same high standards of dignity and mobility, ensuring that a person's vulnerability is not penalised simply because of the jurisdiction they happen to live in. As a more general point, we must stop planning public transport inside geographic silos and start looking at our transit networks on a real, logical all-Ireland basis. To take the north west as an example, the city of Derry is a natural economic and transit hub for the vast majority of County Donegal. For citizens living in Donegal or Monaghan, it is frequently much faster and more practical to transit directly across Tyrone or Fermanagh to reach another part of the Republic than it is to navigate their way into Connacht.”
“By working with the Northern authorities, Stormont and Westminster to recognise reciprocal rights seamlessly, we open up transit opportunities for all vulnerable Northern citizens, allowing them to travel, spend and visit family in the Republic without facing a financial or administrative wall. The true value of an all-island approach is that it replaces confusion with total coherence. Right now, we have a messy, unequal patchwork of rules. A disabled citizen in the South gets 100% free travel, but across the Border, a disabled person only gets a half-fare pass, and a full-time carer gets absolutely nothing at all. This is a significant human rights gap on a single island.”
“When a pensioner or disabled person wants to visit a grandchild, go to the shop or attend a community event just a few miles away, they should not have to navigate a maze of international paperwork just to use a local bus. The current clunky separation of transport passes ignores the lived reality of these tight-knit cross-Border communities. Let us be clear. A truly seamless, integrated system is a win-win that delivers massive practical benefits to residents of Northern Ireland as well. Northern seniors holding a senior smart pass love visiting the South, but the moment they cross the Border, their younger disabled neighbours and full-time carers are left completely stranded and forced to pay full adult fares.”
“It will point to the senior pass scheme, where a resident here can apply for a separate concessionary card to travel into the North. Let us be completely honest with ourselves. Forcing a 75-year-old pensioner or a vulnerable citizen to fill out a separate cross-Border application form, jump through bureaucratic hoops and wait weeks for a second piece of plastic is not a true all-Ireland strategy. It is a barrier. It is an administrative deterrent. It is also a scheme that leaves out those with disabilities and full-time carers. We must recognise that the communities near the Border do not see their lives in two separate halves. For them, the Border is a line on a map, not a barrier to daily life. Families, social lives and basic daily activities span both sides of that line fluidly.”
“The Minister, Deputy Calleary, is welcome to the House. I rise to focus the attention of the House on a vital public service that sits at the very heart of social inclusion on this island, the free travel scheme. Specifically, I am calling on the Minister for Social Protection to investigate a comprehensive, seamless expansion of this scheme into Northern Ireland. The free travel scheme is a lifeline, providing dignity, independence and mobility to all our older citizens, full-time carers and people with disabilities, yet when an eligible pass holder reaches the Border, that independence is abruptly halted by an invisible wall of administrative bureaucracy. I want to pre-empt what I expect the Minister is going to argue today. The Department will likely argue that a system already exists.”
“(5) The provisions of Part IIIA shall not continue in force beyond the period specified in subsection (1) unless a resolution approving their continuation has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.”.”.”
“(3) A report under subsection (2) shall include— (a) an assessment of the use in practice of the powers conferred under Part IIIA, (b) consideration of the classification of different types of deployment of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power, (c) consideration of the thresholds appropriate to such classifications, (d) consideration of the safeguards and oversight mechanisms applicable to such deployments, including in situations involving public order, and (e) proposals for legislative or administrative reform. (4) The Government shall, having considered the report, bring forward such legislative or other measures as it considers appropriate having regard to the findings and proposals contained in the report.”
“I move amendment No. 24: In page 19, after line 40, to insert the following: “Review and sunset of Part IIIA provisions 40D. (1) The provisions of Part IIIA shall cease to have effect 3 years after the commencement of this section unless continued in accordance with subsection (5). (2) The Minister shall, not later than 2 years after the commencement of this section, conduct a review of the operation of Part IIIA and shall lay a report before each House of the Oireachtas.”
“In that context, it is vital to look to appropriate reforms in matters of domestic deployment, including deployment in aid of the civil power. I commend my amendment to the House.”
“There could be a requirement for Cabinet approval, for example, or approval by the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, with such approval conditioned on a State crisis check. I do not have a fully formed solution but these are exactly the questions and discussions I would like my amendment to encourage. On the back of these discussions and considerations, a permanent law is to be drafted. If that is not yet ready and more time is needed to get it right, the amendment includes provision to extend the current legislation via a resolution passed by both Houses. Discussions and reforms along those lines will be vital as we go forward. We must face the sad reality that we are in an age of growing security needs and our Defence Forces will, I hope, grow and expand to meet the dangers the world faces.”
“The Army is for the defence of the State, whether from external invasion or internal insurrection, not for deployment against protestors looking for a change of law or policy or even against vandals. Then there is the consideration of the safeguards and oversight mechanism applicable to such deployments. In looking to check these powers of domestic military deployment, we have also seen evidence of another type of duality of thought, namely, that deployment in aid of the civil power should be either subject or not subject to the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is another unhelpful duality. As the Minister pointed out, it would be impractical given the urgent nature of most deployments. However, that does not mean we should give such a high level of discretion regarding serious deployments to two Ministers.”
“Civil disobedience, by its nature, is about breaking the law in a non-violent manner. When climate protestors blocked O'Connell Bridge or when pro-peace activists block Shannon Airport, is there any talk of deploying the Army? Of course there is not. Unless a violent mob were surging up Nassau Street or Grafton Street with clear intent to storm these buildings in order to violently overthrow the legitimate Government, the Army should not be deployed. As a general principle, the Army should not be used for crowd control or dealing with protestors at all. That should be the sole remit of the Garda and it should be resourced accordingly. There is a tangible concern that the Army could slip into becoming a back-up riot squad, and that is not right.”
“On the one hand, the Minister mentioned routine deployment such as the bomb disposal squad helping An Garda Síochána and armed escorts for cash transports. On the other hand, the example was given of the deployment against the fuel protests. That is not helpful. Attaching a section of soldiers to passively dissuade an attack on a cash transport is obviously different from a deployment of a whole company to clear protestors from the streets. The amendment also suggests consideration of the threshold appropriate to the classifications. In defence of the deployment during the fuel protests, we were told the protestors were in breach of the law, had no right to block vital infrastructure and, therefore, we must send in the troops. That reflects a bizarre all-or-nothing dualism. Breaches of law must be treated with proportionality.”
“I bring forward my amendment in the spirit of improving the Bill and, at a bare minimum, in order to have some constructive suggestions entered into the public record, which I hope the Minister will consider. In addition to adding a sunset clause, my amendment proposes a requirement for the Minister to bring forward a report. This is to ensure the legislation does not expire into a vacuum. The amendment also outlines the issues the report should consider. That will address what I consider to be a number of conflations and simplifications that arose during the previous debate. One issue the report should consider is the classification of the different types of deployments of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power. During debate on the preceding Stage, there was a conflation of all kinds of deployments.”
“My amendment No. 24 proposes to insert a three-year sunset clause and a mandatory operational review framework into Part IIIA of the Defence Act 1954, as inserted by section 9 of the Bill, directly addressing the State's expanding powers regarding the Defence Forces' deployment in aid of the civil power. Let me be clear. I support the broad principles of the Bill and I welcome the codification and modernisation of our defence protocols. However, this is a miscellaneous provisions Bill and, as such, it is not really the place to introduce broad and sweeping reforms. Nevertheless, just as we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good, we must never allow the good to become the enemy of the better.”
“I also support the Minister with this amendment. From my perspective, and I hear what Senator Higgins has outlined, anyone involved in antisocial behaviour where they are covering their faces needs to be dealt with. In my town of Duleek over recent weeks, many of the residents in our housing estates have been inundated with young gurriers on scramblers going around, with balaclavas on them, ripping up their parks and recreational spaces. It has to stop. These are all teenagers. They are probably from the age of 13 upwards, so I support the Minister 100% on this amendment. I also sympathise with Senator Higgins’s point, but, really, if people are not planning to break the law in any capacity at all, which is a totally different context, this amendment does not apply. This is to do with people acting inappropriately in public.”
“To be clear, I am not attacking any individual. I am questioning what all of this has to say about the state of our public procurement. Section 53(c) of the aforementioned Act requires this six-month pilot contract to be reviewed. I echo the CRA's demand that this evaluation must be conducted by an independent evaluator to ensure absolute transparency. We all will be watching this and we will not leave those vulnerable children to this company.”
“It is a devastating indictment of our current system when a single private entity can profit so dramatically from the misfortune of others, while also banking millions of euro from the Irish taxpayer due to a total lack of State planning, with no will to enforce a tough, fair and efficient migration system. We are now watching core child welfare functions being absorbed into the commercial facility.”
“This bizarre procurement decision shines a harsh light on a deeply broken international protection system. State inefficiency has turned a severe humanitarian crisis into an extraordinary corporate windfall. Corporate filings revealed that Allpro Services's after-tax profits surged eightfold to a staggering €10.6 million on the back of emergency State accommodation contracts, allowing the owners to extract a €5.6 million dividend payout. This is not the first time this facilities firm has successfully expanded its corporate portfolio across the machinery of the State. The same article shows that they already hold a €5 million contract with the Department of agriculture, alongside a €290,000 contract with the Department of higher education.”
“They are tasked with navigating intense legal screenings and complex family tracing procedures, yet the State has outsourced this critical statutory duty to a commercial provider whose core business traditionally consists of cleaning, security, pest control and landscaping. As the CRA states, this company has no demonstrated expertise of the legal processes involved. This represents a staggering departure from child welfare standards. It is an absolute insult to the dedicated non-profits and childcare specialists across Ireland who have spent decades building expertise in this highly sensitive field. However, to understand how we arrived at this point, we must look back no further than an article published by the Business Post in August of last year.”
“I speak today on a matter of urgent child protection and public expenditure. I received a letter from the Children's Rights Alliance, CRA, expressing deep disappointment that Allpro Services had secured a contract to act as the official representative organisation for unaccompanied and separated children. These children are among the most traumatised individuals in the State. The Children's Rights Alliance has explicitly warned that these minors are extremely vulnerable to hypermobility, exploitation, trafficking and disappearing. Under section 50 of the International Protection Act, the appointed company must "represent, assist and act on behalf of the unaccompanied" child.”
“We must demolish the double standard shielding public bodies and ensure that we do not cross the starting line so early as to disqualify our entire economy. The Minister of State might take on board that point. I will be proposing amendments on Committee Stage. It is a really important element of the legislation the Minister of State has brought before us today.”
“While international hubs invest capital in deep learning and computational infrastructure, Ireland's primary ambition under this Bill is to be Europe's most enthusiastic clampdown merchant. We are penalising local tech before our domestic economy can benefit from it. Only today, it was announced that TikTok is cutting 300 jobs in Dublin. This is not about future hypotheticals. It is real and it is happening now. This illustrates that these companies do respond to regulation. This market is moving faster than we can keep up with. Ultimately, this means that our legislation has to be streamlined and focused, not cumbersome, with enforcement spread across 15 statutory bodies. We must stop this trigger-happy rush. We must fix the High Court bottlenecks by utilising the Circuit Court.”
“Furthermore, the advisory board of this new AI office lacks a statutory requirement to include experts in human rights or consumer protection. It prioritises purely industrial backgrounds, sidelining civil liberties. This legislation approaches the future with deep institutional paranoia, treating human ingenuity as a dangerous liability to be shackled with pre-emptive State permissions. We are telling young developers that they are suspected rule-breakers until they fill out enough paperwork to prove themselves otherwise. It is a rule of trust for the State but suspicion for the creator. We are positioning ourselves as a high-handed hall monitor of the digital schoolyard we did not build. We must remember that; we did not build it.”
“If fines are toxic for public services, they are toxic for the private sector as well. The solution is to flatten the fine limits for both public and private offenders using the discretion the EU law allows us, rather than creating a privileged sanctuary for State bureaucracy. We should either do that or dissuade our public bodies by the same fine threshold found in Article 99 of the EU Act. We must also confront how this Bill handles democratic oversight. It scatters enforcement power across a web of 15 separate regulatory bodies, moving executive decisions out of public sight and away from elected representatives. Power is being transferred to unelected authorities in Brussels and Dublin, reducing the Oireachtas to an office that simply pays the bills.”
“States use algorithmic profiling for welfare, automated housing systems, biometric tracking and many other purposes, yet the machinery of Government has ensured that, if it breaks the law, it will face a relatively inconsequential slap on the wrist. The Minister of State defends this cap by claiming that imposing large fines on Departments of the State punishes the public twice by draining budget from health and education. I will turn that logic back on the Minister of State. If massive financial penalties dangerously drain cash from vital investments, why apply them to private employers? The highly mobile digital economy based in Dublin pays for our State pensions, infrastructure and public sector wages. If a massive fine ruins a private company's budget, it punishes the taxpayer through job losses and a shrunken tax base.”
“We need a system where lower value fines under €500,000 take effect swiftly through the Circuit Courts, with strict statutory clocks running on investigations. Without these fast-track timelines, the Bill is a paper tiger. The most offensive element of this Bill is the double standards in how the State treats private employers as opposed to itself. Under section 105, private firms face ruinous multimillion euro penalties tied to global turnover while, under sections 133 and 136, the State caps fines for public bodies at a flat rate of €1 million. This ignores a crucial fact. The highest risk automated systems are not built to sell consumer goods; they are deployed by states.”
“With zero statutory guidelines guiding these investigations, a company could deploy an invasive algorithm in seconds while our legal response grinds on for three to four years. I believe the Government's defence is that, under the Zalewski v . WRC and Pigs Marketing Board v . Donnelly rulings, an unelected regulator cannot penalise someone without a High Court judge signing off. This is a legal straw man. Our Constitution requires a judge to validate a sanction but it does not mandate High Court involvement for every minor infraction. The cases confirmed that lower courts, such as the Circuit Court, are fully capable of conferring constitutional validity on administrative fines. By bypassing lower courts, the Government creates an artificial bottleneck.”
“We are hiring staff and spending millions to referee a match that does not begin for 16 months. This signals to the tech sector that we are trigger-happy and eager to regulate what we do not yet understand. True stability means knowing the rules and the subject matter they regulate rather than forcing employers to guess what an overeager domestic office might do. This brings me to the enforcement framework set out in Part 6, which duplicates the flaws that paralysed GDPR enforcement for years. Every administrative fine is frozen until confirmed by the High Court. Even if a company accepts a fine without appeal, the authority must queue for a High Court date just to activate the penalty.”
“The Minister of State is very welcome. It is great to see her here in the Chamber. I will address the structural flaws in this legislation. Underneath the language of safety, this Bill threatens our economic sovereignty, creates court bottlenecks and sets up hypercritical double standards for the State and the citizen. The Government claims that establishing oifig IS na hÉireann by August gives us first-mover advantage. The Minister of State argues that this early roll-out will provide stability to the market. However, moving before the starting gun fires gets you disqualified. We are rushing into a regulatory fog. This Bill forces a costly enforcement machine into existence by August despite the EU's digital omnibus framework having delayed the actual high-risk rules until December 2027.”
“I have tabled a lot of amendments and my only issue is the one with Tusla, the State agency for the care of children. I just do not have faith in it, but I have faith in the Minister that, if Tusla is not doing its job or not doing it correctly, he will come back to this Chamber in a year's time and say that can be changed and perhaps another body can be found to take on the role. I thank the Minister. I will not be pressing my amendments. I accept the Minister's reasoning.”
“We give blood relatives the legal autonomy to independently apply to remove an abuser's guardianship, armed with an iron-clad statutory shield that prevents the offender from launching retaliatory custody lawsuits against a grieving family. If this State truly believes in the power of the family network, if it truly intends to honour the legacy of Valerie French and the tireless campaigning of her kin, we must stop treating relatives as silent bystanders in State-controlled courtrooms. We must pass this full package, dismantle these artificial bureaucratic bottlenecks and transform the extended family into active, legal, protected partners in safeguarding Ireland's children. I commend these amendments to the House. I hope the Minister will consider accepting some of them.”
“1, we shift the entire structural landscape of the 1964 Act from passive to active rights, creating an all-encompassing notification system that ensures aunts, uncles and grandparents are automatically invited to protect children in their darkest hours, completely protected by common-sense administrative and GDPR safety valves. With amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5, we shatter the glass door and the closed door court secrecy of Tusla-led prosecutions under Valerie's law and guarantee, through primary mandated and staggered fallbacks, that the voices of extended family, independent specialists and recovering victims' parents can never be sidelined by State attorneys. With amendment No. 7, supported by the notice machinery of amendments Nos. 17 and 18, we demolish Tusla's exclusive gatekeeping monopoly.”
“18, if Tusla tries to run a case in the shadows, it is statutorily compelled to actively notify the next of kin. We are stripping away its choice to ignore the family. With this complete framework, Tusla will no longer be the masters of who gets into the courtroom. It will be a legally compelled servant of the court and held directly accountable by judge. When we evaluate this legislation package in its entirety, we are looking at the comprehensive, interlocking strategy to fundamentally rebalance Irish family law away from institutional monopoly and back towards family, kinship and care. By passing amendment No.”
“It is likely the Minister will tell this House that Tusla already involves extended families whenever it is appropriate to do so, but that is exactly the problem. Right now, the system relies entirely on Tusla's own discretion. It holds all the cards as an unaccountable gatekeeper. By shifting this requirement into a strict statutory mandate under amendments Nos. 1 and 7, and locking it in place with the notice machinery of amendments Nos. 17 and 18, we are using the power of primary legislation to force it to act against its own gatekeeping instincts. Under amendment No. 17, if a family initiates a case, Tusla is stripped of its powers to block it. It is legally brought in as a notification party to assist the family and not to command them. Under our fallback amendment No.”
“Even if the State refuses to let a grandmother launch a lawsuit, it is an absolute injustice to let Tusla run that lawsuit while leaving family members in the dark and, more accurately, even potentially leaving them in the dark, which would be a failure of good law. Amendment No. 18 does not rely on amendment No. 7. It stands completely on its own. It establishes a strict duty to notify, forcing Tusla, insofar as reasonably practicable, to actively track down and notify the next of kin or adult relatives whenever the State moves to restrict a killer's guardianship. Once more, I note that we are coming full circle, as, like my first amendment, it transforms what is currently a passive right to join a case into an active, informed safeguard to ensure that no family is left in the dark.”
“17 provides the necessary legal machinery for the family' right to apply. It mandates that if a relative launches a case independently under section 12DA, notice must be served on Tusla giving the agency an automatic right to apply to be joined to the proceedings. Therefore, amendment No. 17 relies entirely on the passage of amendment No. 7. If this House chooses to grant families the right to act, amendment No. 17 is the bridge that keeps Tusla involved as a supportive partner. However, if the committee rejects that right and chooses to maintain Tusla's monopoly over initiating cases, I ask the Minister to look at amendment No. 18, which must be seen as our vital, stand-alone fallback.”
“Under our current flawed family law system, if a courageous grandmother, aunt or uncle tries to step in to protect a child, a high-earning defence solicitor representing the convicted killer can immediately turn around and drag that grieving family through the mud with retaliatory counter-suits for access or custody under the 1964 Act. My amendments would put a definite stop to this legal harassment. They explicitly lock the abuser out from weaponising sections 6A or 8 against the family, thereby ensuring the court system can never be used as a tool of ongoing control and trauma from behind prison bars. Finally, we must look at how these rules tie together procedurally under section 12I, which handles notice parties. I want to be entirely transparent with the House about how these final two amendments operate. Amendment No.”
“Overall, the principle of this amendment, as with most of them, is to involve family because I feel the bulk of the objections to these amendments will be that involving family, giving them rights of application and mandating they should be notified of proceedings will introduce too many variables into the court case. Yet I think this objection would be hypercritical, because on one hand we find that it is good enough for a family to take the initiative to alter our national statutory legislation, as David French and his family have bravely done, but on the other hand we do not think a family is good enough to apply for a guardianship removal. That is not consistent. Furthermore, I want to draw the House's attention to the vital shield I have built into subsection (7) of amendment No. 7.”
“They allow a relative, be it a grandparent, aunt, uncle or adult sibling who has legitimate concerns for the child's safety to walk directly into a court and sue to strip the killer's guardianship rights. Crucially, the proposed subsection (8) explicitly states that this application can be made independently of, and notwithstanding any actions or inaction by Tusla. To prevent any malicious litigation, subsection (9) gives the judge full power to throw out any application that is frivolous or vexatious. Likewise, if there are multiple applications it gives the court the right to direct that those applications may be heard at the same time.”
“It ensures a traumatised parent cannot be sidelined by Tusla's legal team while simultaneously mandating that the wider family and the independent professionals are engaged to build a comprehensive picture of the child's environment. This brings me to what I believe is the most fundamental shift proposed in this package. Amendment No. 7 seeks to insert section 12DA, granting the family a direct right to apply for the removal or restriction of guardianship. As the Bill is currently drafted, Tusla virtually holds a total monopoly. If a parent kills the other parent, only Tusla can choose to initiate a case. If Tusla drops the ball, delays or forms a view that differs from the family, the victim's family is left entirely powerless. My amendments break that bottleneck.”
“It establishes a clear, positive mandate encouraging the court to look outside the institutional vacuum of Tusla and the convicted guardian, explicitly drawing on wider family networks and any appointed guardian ad litem . Similarly, I have applied the exact same principle to section 12D under amendment No. 5, which deals with cases where a parent has survived a serious non-fatal assault. Here, the dynamic changes dramatically. The other guardian is very much alive but they are a recovering victim. My amendment explicitly hard-codes the victim guardian directly into the list of mandatory voices the court must seek out and listen to.”
“I have tabled these amendments as a staggered option for section 12C. Amendment No. 3 is my preferred, robust option. It makes the gathering of the views of family and others a firm statutory precondition. It states the making a guardianship removal order shall be subject to the court making reasonable efforts to obtain the input of family members and independent professionals. We cannot allow life-altering decisions about a child's legal structure to occur behind closed doors with only the State, Tusla and the offender in the room. However, if the Minister objects to that strict precondition on administrative grounds, I have provided amendment No. 4 as a flexible fallback option. This fallback option uses the phrase "where practicable" to grand the Judiciary immediate flexibility.”
“If Tusla demonstrates it has made an honest, practical effort to notify the child's known immediate family network, the judge has the full authority to rule that the statutory burden has been met and to proceed with the case. This amendment does not create a heavy, unworkable checklist for social workers. Rather, it uses strict language to stop Tusla from completely shutting out a child's family, while providing the court with the necessary flexibility to ensure a speedy, efficient process that keeps the child's best interest paramount. Additionally, it empowers the applicant to make use of the other bodies in the State insofar as there is no breach of standing data law. Moving further into section 3, we will come to my amendments Nos. 3 and 4, regarding the requirement of the court to seek and consider extended views.”