Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the introduction of the legislation. It is very important. I compliment the Minister on the work she is doing in this area. I make particular reference to organised crime and other issues, including stalking, that have been raised by Members. I compliment my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, on the reference to the in camera rule where stalking is concerned. I do not see why somebody accused of stalking a woman and terrorising her and her family in the way that has been done should be allowed to have the crime examined in secret under the in camerarule. I do not see the reason for this.

It is in this regard that I want to draw attention to something else that is equally ominous and worrying. This is use of section 47 reports and the degree to which the courts take them into account. I have previously relayed this concern to the Minister. I have also relayed it to the House twice in recent times. A court messenger can, by virtue of his or her recommendation to the court, make it possible to take away children from a mother in order to ensure a particular outcome in a forthcoming case. This is what it amounts to. I have dealt with cases in recent times where mothers have been separated from their children and subjected to appalling indifference and callousness by the system. Their children are removed callously and put in a place determined by the court. This, in turn, can predetermine the outcome of a family law case.

I recognise that family law cases are held in cameraalso. There is a case for removing the in camerarule and letting the air into the system to such an extent that everybody knows what to expect there. I do not blame judges. I am simply saying these issues need to be dealt with. We need to deal with them in this House by way of legislation. I hope the Minister will introduce legislation in this regard.

For an awfully long time I campaigned to have the bail laws amended. They were amended to a certain extent. I am not so certain it is efficient. It has not deterred some people while on bail from committing further and more serious crimes. This should not be the case. We should not arrive at a situation of zero tolerance, as was applied in New York as a political claim. It was Ed Koch when he was mayor of New York who set the scene for what became zero tolerance eventually. He tackled the big crime barons in such a way as to put them out of business and put them behind bars. The Minister is hoping to do the same thing and we recognise this. It is a very important business. Drugs and violence that result in the kicking to death of an innocent individual outside a pub or anywhere else in the evening are totally and absolutely unacceptable. There is no use trying to make excuses for it and stating people were not really in control of their actions at the time and they had drugs or alcohol or whatever the case may be. There is no excuse for this.

I believe that during the lockdown people spent a lot of time studying videos of motor racing and the like. Of course we can do all kinds of things in a video and switch it back and forth and overtake from the left and the right. That is what is going on at present in a big way. Yesterday on a run to Belfast I witnessed two trucks occupying both lanes of the road with one trying to overtake the other, or pretending it was trying to overtake the other, for at least 20 miles. We want safety on the roads. This is certainly not a trip in that direction. I know it breaks the law but I want to bring it to the Minister's attention. What happens in a video is not as easily managed when it takes place in reality.

I could go on for a long time about how we should deal with these issues when they arise. It is important to bring them to the attention of the House and the Minister, whatever they may be, even if the House says it is a matter for the courts and it should be brought before the courts; that is not our function. Our function in this House is to raise matters that appear to be going wrong and are in need of attention and I presume this is done on the basis that right is right and two wrongs do not make a right. At some stage we should come to recognise, as I do, that there have been situations in the past when issues were raised in the House, against the rules as it were and with huge opposition, that ultimately ended up being the subject of major and serious inquiries involving a whole lot of people. It would been far better to have dealt with the issues originally. A case that comes to mind is one in which a woman complained about the sexual assault of her daughter and nothing was done about it. One cannot walk away from that, therefore, the question was put and answered in a particular way, but action was taken within a few days, which indicates something needed to be dealt with. I am sure the same has happened to every Member of the House on several occasions.

I finish by drawing attention to section 47, which needs to be dealt with soon, because there will be a tragedy. There is a level of emotion, trauma and coldness surrounding a mother when she is told that she does not matter in this business or that if she does matter, it is only in a way decided by somebody else. If the activities of Mr. Jim Sheehan in the courts are allowed to continue, there will be serious consequences.

See this speech in context