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 a…

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 fo…

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 …

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 suc…

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 foll…

I wish to raise again the atrocious conditions of many roads in Counties Cavan and Monaghan. I have raised this with the Taoiseach on a number of occasions. He has responded by saying that his Fianna Fáil representatives have also raised this issue with him but, clearly, he has either not listened or his Cavan-Monaghan representatives are not effective. This year, the Government allocated less funding for local road restorations to Cavan and Monaghan than last year. Our local authorities are doing their best. They …

Less money this year than last year.

I want to put on record that the way in which the Minister has handled this entire piece of legislation is in no way satisfactory, not even talking about the guillotine that is in place later on this evening. This is the second motion to instruct the committee we have had to the House where the Minister has added new and completely unrelated matters to a Bill that already covers a range of unrelated matters. Even the Title of the Bill has changed since we discussed it on Second Stage. Effectively what that means, a…

And another Department.

He has no sympathy at all.

The Minister is in for the long haul.

Bad ones go quicker.

The Minister did not need to guillotine it.

It must be the only thing that is outside the scope of the Bill.

Unfortunately because of the way the Minister has framed this debate, a 90-minute debate is just not enough. It is not fair because there have already been lots of amendments which Deputies would have wished to speak for. I want to put on the record that I do not support Deputy Kelly’s amendment. Anybody who is preventing others by unlawful means, whether by obstructing them or impeding their freedom of movement, should be held to account before the law. It should not matter whether the person who is being impeded …

I move amendment No. 13: In page 14, to delete lines 25 to 40, and in page 15, to delete lines 1 and 2. This amendment seeks to delete lines 25 to 40. Back in April at the height of what are now called the fuel protests, the Minister added fuel to a volatile situation. He essentially called for the Defence Forces to be deployed to assist gardaí in removing fuel protest blockades. It was a serious escalation and provocation at a time when the Government should have been focusing, and all Ministers, particularly the …

I ask the Minister not to be disingenuous by talking about wanting to get to the counselling notes issue. He has been asked by two Members to ask the Chief Whip to come in to amend the Order of Business to give more time. I have decided against every instinct in my body not to call a vote on this amendment, which I think it is crucially important. The reason I am not going to call a vote is because of the people in the Gallery and their right to hear this House discuss a matter of utmost importance that has come ab…

I move amendment No. 14: In page 15, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “Review and annual reporting on operation of Part IIIA 40D. (1) The Minister shall, in respect of each calendar year, carry out a review of the operation of this Part. (2) A review under subsection (1) shall include an assessment of the exercise of powers under sections 40A, 40B and 40C, including the frequency and circumstances of their use. (3) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the completion of a review under su…

It seems a long time ago that the justice committee considered the heads of this criminal and civil law Bill. A lot more heads have been introduced since. One of our criticisms of the heads of the Bill was that there were huge aspects of the Bill we were not able to spend any time on. We did not get to deal with the sex-for-rent provisions and a whole load of other areas at all. We could only deal with written submissions. We discussed this aspect of the Bill quite a lot, however. There was cross-party agreement. T…

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business under Standing Order 35(3) such that we would include in this week's Dáil schedule statements and questions on the EU Migration and Asylum Pact and the international protection system. A debate such as that would be useful, if only to fact-check the many misrepresentations the Taoiseach has made in this House, even today.