I thank Deputy Carthy for his question. I did indeed have an opportunity to read the Victims of Sexual Violence Civil Protection Orders Bill he introduced to the House on 26 June. Deputy Carthy's Bill seeks to provide that at the same time as somebody is convicted of a serious sexual offence on indictment the court would impose an order restraining the person convicted of the offence from approaching the victim. It is legislation I will keep under consideration. Before I make a conclusive decision on it, I have to take into account the legislation that is there at present. I am sure he will agree there is no point in enacting legislation that simply repeats what is there in our statutory framework already. Under Part 5 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 there is capacity for an order to be granted by the court restraining an individual from approaching or coming within a certain distance of other individuals. This legislation was designed and passed as stalking legislation but it is a statutory mechanism that is in place. I should also point out we already have in our legal system protection orders in the context of domestic violence, which would cover sexual offences in many respects. Under section 10 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 there is a provision for the granting of protection orders. Similar to the safety order, it restrains a person, meaning the respondent remains in the home but is ordered not to use violence, threats or molestations. It imposes protections on the victim. I should also point out the Sex Offenders Act is in place and it provides for specific requirements regarding somebody who has been convicted of one of the offences set out in Deputy Carthy's legislation.

Sentiment score: -0.20

I agree with Deputy Carthy when he says we need to empower victims. One issue I may have in respect of his legislation is that the proposal is that at the time of conviction the protection order would be placed on the individual. If we think about it, under the legislation Deputy Carthy proposes the protection order would be put in place at the same time that an individual is sentenced to ten to 15 years imprisonment for a very serious sexual offence, but it would only come into effect at the time the individual leaves prison, which could be ten, 11 or 12 years later. Conditional release and terms of release can probably be better set at the time the person is being released. Most victims would be satisfied when somebody gets a lengthy sentence and they know they will spend a lengthy period in prison. The victim has to be informed when the person will be released. As well as this, we should ensure there are conditions placed on the individual from the date of release. I am concerned that imposing these restrictions at the time of conviction may not take into account the full circumstances that apply at the time of release.

Sentiment score: -0.00

I will give consideration to the Bill but I do not want to progress legislation that is unnecessary. In circumstances where a person gets a life sentence for a very serious sexual offence such as rape, when it comes to that person's release many years later, conditions of release will be imposed upon that person. Those conditions can direct that the person shall not go anywhere near the victim or that he or she shall stay away from a town where the victim has resided. I would not like the message to go out that there is no mechanism by which the State can put in place conditions after a person has been released. As I have said, I am concerned that the legislation the Deputy is suggesting imposes an obligation that would probably not kick in until seven, ten or 12 years later. I am happy to look at the imposition of controls on persons convicted of a sexual offence who are subject to immediate release, but such a mechanism already exists in the Sex Offenders Act, which imposes very strict obligations on those convicted of sexual offences.

Sentiment score: -0.53

I thank Deputy Kelly. I will come to the issue he focused on, which was financial concerns within An Garda Síochána, but his general question was about the reforms I am going to encourage the new Commissioner to operate or continue with. I have had many engagements with him. One of the priorities I have emphasised to him, which is a priority of my own and of Government, is that I want to see greater Garda visibility. That means having more members recruited into the force and ensuring that, when people are recruited as members of An Garda Síochána, they are out in our community and that people get to see them. It is absolutely essential for safety and the perception of safety that there is widespread Garda visibility in our towns and cities. I have also emphasised that an area of reform I want to see is the greater use of technology by An Garda Síochána. I have secured considerable funding in the budget and in the national development plan to ensure that each member of An Garda Síochána will have access to body cameras. I want to see these rolled out rapidly next year. The Deputy focused on issues relating to Garda resources and what the Comptroller and Auditor General has correctly presented as a misuse of financial resources by An Garda Síochána. He highlighted how accommodation for the UEFA Europa League final last year was purchased at an excessive cost and that many of the rooms that were acquired at a total cost of up to €250,000 were not used. I have spoken to the Commissioner in respect of this matter. It is absolutely essential that, when significant resources are provided to An Garda Síochána, those resources are used carefully. Money used to acquire resources is precious and we need to ensure the money we provide to An Garda Síochána is used for the purpose of protecting the public and keeping them safe. I was very disappointed at what I saw in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report but I am pleased that the Commissioner and An Garda Síochána have accepted all of the recommendations contained within it. I do not believe we will see such a waste of money again.

Sentiment score: 0.38

In respect of the issue the Deputy highlighted regarding his colleague Deputy Kenny's meeting later today, I am obviously not going to get involved in any individual investigations that may be initiated by An Garda Síochána. With regard to the other items the Deputy highlighted, I cannot shy away from the fact that there have been examples of unwise expenditure in the past. I have emphasised to the Commissioner and will emphasise again here publicly that, when Accounting Officers are spending public money, they have to ensure that it is spent carefully on behalf of the people of the country. It is essential that we do not have a situation whereby money, a valuable resource, is provided from the budget to an Accounting Officer who does not spend it carefully and cautiously. The current Commissioner is very aware of the fact that any moneys he receives via Vote of the Oireachtas have to be spent very carefully and cautiously. However, we do need to provide resources to An Garda Síochána to improve technology. The Deputy has identified some instances where he says money has been wasted but there has also been expenditure on items that have been very beneficial to the Garda and to the public at large.

Sentiment score: 0.38

When it comes to financial mismanagement in An Garda Síochána, my primary concern is highlighted by what is in the Comptroller and Auditor General's current report. I note the Deputy has referred to issues that took place back in 2016. They are of concern but my primary concern-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

-----is to ensure that the issues identified in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report are confronted by senior Garda management.

Sentiment score: 0.20

The Deputy will have seen the response from the Garda Commissioner and senior Garda management. They accept the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is a very valuable constitutional office because those who are charged with spending public money must be aware that, if they mismanage the spending of that money, it will be exposed, discussed and debated in this House. I have emphasised to the Commissioner and senior management that they have to be extremely careful with moneys provided to them but the main portion of the money going into An Garda Síochána relates to pay, recruitment and numbers of persons within the force. That is money that is well spent. The technological advancements we are giving to the Garda such as body cameras, improvements to the fleet, helicopters and aircraft are all necessary for the people of Ireland to be kept safe by An Garda Síochána.

Sentiment score: 0.28

I thank the Deputy Murphy for this important question. As he has identified, some additional funding has been provided for legal aid in the budget announced this week. I was very pleased to secure an additional €8 million in funding for the Legal Aid Board. I also managed to secure a 50% increase in funding for free legal advice centres. As the Deputy will be aware, in order for the administration of justice to operate effectively, people must have access to the courts. In many areas, we do provide funding for access to the courts. Individuals who are prosecuted for criminal offences and who do not have means get representation under the criminal legal aid scheme. I am pleased to say I have managed to achieve the full restoration of the fees in that scheme next year, subject to agreeing a number of reforms in the area. The specific issue identified by Deputy Murphy is the fact that, at present, the income threshold applied in order to gain access to civil legal aid is €18,000. A report I recently received from former Chief Justice Frank Clarke recommends it should be increased to €23,500 in disposable income. I agree with that recommendation and would like to see it implemented. However, there are a number of things I need to do before I can announce its implementation. In the first instance, I recognise that there has not been a change since 2006. There needs to be. Second, if I raise the threshold, which I hope to do, it will necessarily result in a larger cohort of people eligible to receive legal advice from the Legal Aid Board. I need to ensure, in advance of raising the threshold, that I have the solicitors and legal advice providers available to ensure that, once it is raised, the advice can be provided. I am in the process of getting advice from my Department on what level of further legal expertise will be required to facilitate the raising of the threshold. I want to raise it. This has been on my desk for a couple of months now but I am aware of the urgency because of the fact that the threshold has not been changed since 2006.

Sentiment score: 0.33

I am aware of the minority and majority reports. In many respects, it is beneficial to have two reports. Being realistic, though, my best chance of implementing recommendations is to implement those in the majority report. The Deputy has identified an important area. The area of family law and domestic violence which requires civil orders to be granted is one where it is hard to get other elements of funding provided to it. If somebody wants to take a personal injury case or a contractual case, if they have a good case a principle operates in the legal profession of no foal, no fee. Lawyers will represent the individual concerned and if the case succeeds - and their belief is that it will succeed - they will get their costs paid at the end. In family law, that type of arrangement does not really exist, so this is the area where we need to ensure adequate funding is available.

Sentiment score: 0.24

Due to the limitations on resources, I do not think I could find myself in a situation where I would just abolish thresholds. In terms of having different thresholds for family law cases and domestic violence cases, applications to the scheme at present predominantly arise in respect of international protection advice being sought and, indeed, family law advice. Those are the two big cohorts of it. My first priority is to try to get the threshold up to €23,500. That would protect a lot of people in the family law sphere. In terms of a timeframe, I hope to be in a position to make a decision on this matter next year. I am sorry, perhaps this is not sufficient for the Deputy, but I do not want to set unrealistic expectations. Turning to resources, there is obviously a difficulty in trying to recruit solicitors. They are much in demand in Ireland at present. Many of them are attracted to bigger firms and higher earning areas. It is an issue we need to reflect on regarding what we can do to get solicitors recruited into legal advice boards or aid boards around the country.

Sentiment score: 0.05

The primary principle must be that justice should be administered in public. However, there are exceptions to it. The in camera rule is one of them, which applies generally in family law proceedings. As the Deputy knows, it does not preclude newspapers or journalists attending in courts where family law disputes are being heard, but it does preclude them from publishing the identities of individuals. I am pleased to say we have seen some progress in the area. Greater reporting is now taking place in respect of what is happening in the family law courts. We frequently see on a Monday in one of the newspapers that there is a weekly report of a family law case proceeding there. As I said, research was commissioned and published by my Department on the operation of the in camera rule in family law proceedings, and that report contains 21 recommendations. A number of the strategies that have arisen on foot of that report include the publication of the review of the role of expert reports in the family law process too. The Deputy may be aware this issue is quite contentious and is one that is coming within my consideration of family law strategy. I would like to see the lifting of some of the in camera rule restrictions. Many people who have been before the family law process have expressed their concerns about it. An excellent report was produced by academics recently. It was commissioned by my Department and provided to me. It outlined a lot of general dissatisfaction with the operation of the rule. I have not been able to get recommendations together as to how we should proceed in terms of changing the law. Work is ongoing in the Department in this respect. It does take time, consideration and consultation with parties to assess how we should move on. The work, though, is ongoing and I hope to be in a position to have further information for the House in due course.

Sentiment score: 0.17

The Deputy is right that the term and concept of "parental alienation" is highly contested and contentious. It is the case with virtually all family law disputes that they become very contested and contentious. I want to try to ensure that when it comes to a family law dispute involving a child there is a mechanism in place to ensure the voice of that child is heard. The system at present probably relies too much on the production of the reports we spoke about a few moments ago. There is a level of dissatisfaction in respect of those reports and I think some of that dissatisfaction is understandable. I need to try to identify another mechanism whereby the voice of the child can become apparent or heard by the court. It is obviously easier in circumstances where there is a teenage child who is able to express their own views to the court, but when it comes to children under the age of ten it gets much more difficult and, as the age declines, it is sometimes virtually impossible to decipher what is in the best interests of the child. It is something we have to keep working on.

Sentiment score: -0.05

Just to let the Deputy know, in terms of the recommendations of the review I referred to a few moments ago, one is that we produce guidelines on the commissioning, content and use of welfare reports. The Chief Justice has established a judicial committee to develop guidelines on the commissioning, content and use of welfare reports. It is being chaired by Ms Justice Nuala Jackson of the High Court and is being supported by my Department. It is expected to conclude its work shortly. We need to ensure, if reports are being produced for a court, that we are satisfied that they are based upon arcane expertise that is of benefit to the court. All courts are dependent upon getting expert evidence. In some cases, it is appropriate that there is expert evidence to assist the court in deciphering what the wishes of the child are, what the voice of the child is, how the child should be heard and what the child is saying. I can understand why that may be necessary in certain circumstances, particularly for younger children. It is absolutely essential that the system retain confidence in that. That is why I am waiting for the proposals from Ms Justice Nuala Jackson.

Sentiment score: 0.35