Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am anxious to meet the concerns portrayed by the Deputies. However, I need to do so in a clear and proportionate manner. I take Deputy O'Callaghan's point about section 10. I and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel are on the same page on this and want to ensure that adjustments are made to bring about improvement to the text. I will examine it again because what we need is clarity, particularly in emergency situations, which are often in the middle of the night involving a tense atmosphere.

We must also ensure we do not blur the distinction between the role of the Garda Síochána and the role of the judge in these cases, as well as the need to separate entirely the judgment call of the Garda Síochána in terms of the urgency of the situation and the role of the member of the Judiciary in deciding a case on certain circumstances. I will examine the wording of section 10 again to ensure there is clarity.

As far as costs are concerned, I do not see that as an issue. There is a roster of duty judges for emergency situations. These are not hearings which take much time. They can be dealt with speedily having regard to the circumstances, urgency and importance of the cases involved. Oftentimes they are heard at short notice in the residence of the district judge. Costs are not really an issue and I would not like it to be portrayed that emergency court hearings are in some way not accommodated because of financial considerations.

These are serious and emergency issues. Unfortunately, they are becoming more frequent. The law must respond to the needs of the citizens and the public. That is why my feeling on section 10 is that it needs considerable improvement. We must see what we can do between now and Report Stage, particularly in the area of clarity.