This amendment is similar to another amendment the Senator tabled to section 41 on the prohibition of canvassing. We need to ask the question as to how far we should go. We have tried to clearly state that anybody who is working on the commission or working in an office who is part of the overall process should not share that information or be careless such as leaving it on the bus or even to be bringing some of this home in a bag on the bus. They should not be so careless with information that I would deem as impo…

The Senator is right; the damage is done by the time it is published. That is why we are trying to prevent it from being published.

No, it does not. If it is published, the damage has been done.

We are trying to prevent it from getting to that stage. We have a €50,000 fine and the potential for five years in prison. The fault lies squarely with the person who shares the information. It is not just "Prime Time", the Irish Independent or the Daily Mail . What happens if somebody finds such material on a bus and decides to share it on Facebook, as does the next person and the next until 50,000 people share it? Are we then going to hold each and every one of them responsible, fine them, charge them and apply t…

The approach taken here is somewhat similar to the previous approach with regard to how far you cast out the net. Generally, when we talk about canvassing prohibition, it would normally apply to the person himself or herself who was seeking appointment, whatever role is being talked about. Whether it is through the Public Appointments Service or otherwise, it would generally apply to the applicant and that is the approach we are taking here - that you do not cast the net out so wide. There might be instances where …

I have not said it is fine for people to publish. In fact, I said the opposite - that we want to prevent it getting into the hands of people who would publish it. That is why there were such severe penalties in the previous iteration. In relation to canvassing, we are putting in place a very clear structure and a system in which the commission must outline the process it goes through, the requirements and types of skills people must have and there will be an interview process. There will be a very clear, open and t…

We discussed this matter previously. The Senator referred to the sequencing and the time it took to make various appointments. In practice, the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, issues a call for applications annually. It provides-----

No, but it does issue the call and provides recommendations to the Minister from the pool of applicants. Each new vacancy requires new recommendations from JAAB, so there is still that pool. If I, as Minister, request a new JAAB for a new vacancy that arises, it is good practice. That is what we are trying to continue here by proposing names for a specific vacancy. For example, if someone with a particular expertise in court is promoted or retires, we want to be able to fill that need in commercial court, family co…

Section 43(1) requires a person wishing to be considered for appointment to a judicial office to make an application to the commission. As the Senator said, section 42(3) states the commission shall issue this invitation when the Minister has made a request. However, taking the two subsections together, the commission is still allowed to decide if it wants to issue an invitation at the start of the year. That would allow a person wishing to be considered for appointment to a judicial office to make an application t…

I know this is an issue about which the Deputy is very passionate, as am I. That is why I have brought forward the Family Courts Bill, which is being worked on at the moment. I have also introduced the family justice strategy. The Family Courts Bill will ensure that we have specific courts that deal only with family law, thereby ensuring we have the right structure, system and setting in place to support families and also to allow us to work through the enormous numbers of people who need to access the courts. The …

I thank the Deputy. When it comes to my engagement with An Garda Síochána, Garda recruitment is my number one priority. I could probably say it is the Commissioner's priority. We have had challenges over the years, not least the closure of Templemore and, more recently, Covid-19, which has slowed down the number of new recruits coming out. Couple that with an increased population and we are seeing the challenges we have now where members of An Garda Síochána are retiring and we are trying to increase numbers at the…

We have a wonderful workforce in An Garda Síochána. As I said, my priority is to make sure we increase that workforce. The gardaí I meet are committed to their job. Many of them love the work they do. That work is not without its challenges and that is why we provided an unprecedented budget of €2 billion for the Garda alone last year. Obviously, I will be doing what I can to increase that. It is not only about the terms and conditions, which are important. Obviously, I work with the Garda to make sure the terms an…

A number of technical amendments from Senator Ward and me are grouped together for consideration. Amendment No. 1 reflects the change in name of what is now the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Amendments Nos. 13 and 18 from Senator Ward have identified typographical errors. I thank him for that and I am happy to accept these amendments. While I cannot accept the proposed amendment No. 19, I note the point the Senator is making. I am satisfied that the language is cle…

I appreciate where the Senator is coming from in this regard. We are both getting to the same point; we are just doing it in a different way. I accept there are certain items of legislation in which I have repealed and brought forward something new or other areas where we have simply amended older legislation. The reason we have taken this approach is because this was the recommendation in the Tom O'Malley report, which is obviously where this particular section in the miscellaneous Bill has come from. That is the …

I thank the Senator. She touched on two points, which are the mandatory maximum sentence and the presumptive mandatory minimum sentences. A request was put in by the Senator's colleague, Senator Ruane, that we would have a review of the mandatory minimum sentences. That is happening at the moment. Only a few types of offences - firearms and drugs offences - have that minimum presumptive sentence. The evidence to date, though we have not seen the final review, is they do not work as a deterrent. They are only guidel…

I intend to introduce Report Stage amendments providing for consequential changes to a number of other enactments arising from the new subsections 3A and 4A, relating to non-fatal strangulation offences. These mirror the provisions applicable to the existing sections 3 and 4 - assault causing harm and causing serious harm - provisions.

I agree with most of what the Senator has outlined and what she and the groups and representatives she has mentioned are trying to achieve. I have met with many of them. Last week I met with an amazing person who was abused but not by an intimate partner. There was coercive control but because it was not that specific scenario it could not be applied in the courts. This is something I want to move on and change. The offence of coercive control designed in the Domestic Violence Act is specific to the intimate partne…

I also welcome our guests to the Seanad. I thank the Senator for her amendments. I understand where she is coming from in this regard, and some of the NGOs have raised this as well. Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, propose to alter the definition of "stalking" to separate the element of the offence that refers to substantial adverse impact on day-to-day activities from the causing of serious harm and distress. As the Senator rightly said, there are a range of different ways in which we could approach stalking. Th…

We are talking about many of the same issues we discussed in the previous amendment. What we are trying to do is to prevent the stalking behaviour. It is about looking at the immediate safety and welfare of applicants so they can get an immediate order for eight days, as is set out, or five years, on a much longer footing. While stalking, harassment and civil orders are inextricably linked, the standards that are applied are very different. For the civil order, we have set the bar far lower because of the possible …

I thank the Senators. This issue has already been raised. On Second Stage, the Minister, Deputy Harris, gave a commitment to bring forward amendments specifically on ex parte applications. Unfortunately they are not ready but I hope they will be ready for Report Stage. The reason I will not accept Senator Ward's amendments is that we need to go even further. We need to put in place provisions on interlocutory orders and other areas. While I fully accept what he is saying on the amendments, we have been given Govern…