Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Legislation and Security debate -
Wednesday, 1 Nov 1995

SECTION 3.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 7, subsection (1) (b), lines 30 and 31, to delete "continuous period of at least six months during the period of seven months" and substitute "period of at least six months in aggregate during the period of nine months".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 not moved.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 7, subsection (1), between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

"(d) is a sibling of the respondent (including a sibling by virtue of an adoption of either party under the Adoption Acts, 1952 to 1991) and the respondent is a person of full age who does not have a physical or mental disability to such an extent that it is not reasonably possible for the respondent to live independently of the applicant or any person being ‘kindred' within the meaning of section 2 (1) (a) with whom the applicant and respondent are both residing.".

This section is intended to cover cohabiting siblings and to recognise that the problem of violent adult children living at home affects not only their parents but other siblings. For example, the parents of a 20 year old son who may be abusing drugs or alcohol may apply for a barring order. However, if his parents are dead other siblings cannot apply for such an order. Will the Minister consider the issue of cohabiting siblings?

The effect of amendment No. 17 would be to allow relatives of any kind who are living with a respondent relative the right to apply for a barring order.

The applicant could include any child of the respondent no matter what the age of the applicant. The amendment lacks precision and needs to be tightened up from a drafting and technical point of view if it is to proceed along that line. "Sibling" lacks legal precision and is not, as far as I am aware, used in legislation. It begs the question what kind of sibling is intended: relatives of the whole blood, half blood and so on. As framed, the amendment would allow a young child to apply for a barring order whereas the Bill as it stands allows a parent or a health board to apply on behalf of that young person. Where a young child is concerned that is the only workable way to proceed to protect their interests properly. It may be a matter for further consideration as to whether a brother, say, should be allowed to bar another brother from his home. The difficulty here is that there may be permutations and combinations. What, for example, should the position be if one or both of the parents live with those persons? Should they have a say in the matter? To what extent should the fact that only some of those parties have rights of ownership in the home be a factor? There is also the point that the drastic remedy of a barring order has been confined up to now to cases where the protection of a spouse and children are in question. We are now being asked to extend that protection to any relative vis � vis other relatives no matter what the degree of relationship may be. In the circumstances, I regret I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

I ask the Minister to consider the point made in the amendment before Report Stage. I accept there are technical difficulties.

Apart from the technical difficulties I will have another look at the amendment but I do not think it will be possible to extend it beyond the parameters already being extended which are a major advance on the existing position.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 7, subsection (2) (a) (ii), line 49, after "entering" to insert "or approaching".

Section 3 (2) (a) (ii) states: "whether the respondent is or is not residing at a place where the applicant or that dependent person resides, prohibit that respondent from entering such place until further order of the court or until such time as the court shall specify.".

A person who feels threatened by somebody entering may feel equally threatened by an approach to a place. This is a reasonable amendment which seeks to extend the remit of this section.

The effect of Deputy Keogh's amendment would be to empower the court to prohibit the respondent from approaching the home for a period. Subsection (3) (c) already empowers the court to prohibit the respondent from attending at or in the vicinity of the home. In view of this provision Deputy Keogh's amendment is not necessary and, accordingly, I oppose it. Section 3 (3) states:

A barring order may, if the court thinks fit, prohibit the respondent from doing one or more of the following . . . . .

(c) attending at or in the vicinity of, or watching or besetting a place where, the applicant or any dependent person resides;

Amendment, by, leave, withdrawn.

I apologise for my absence. I endorse all the tributes that have been paid to the late Deputy Lenihan. As a matter of respect, I propose we adjourn proceedings until Tuesday next, 7 November at 2.30 p.m. There are many precedents for this. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs sitting in the Dáil Chamber adjourned some minutes ago. In the circumstances, and with the Minister's agreement, it would not be appropriate that the proceedings continue.

Agreed. Perhaps we will adjourn until Tuesday and leave aside the time factor which can be arranged through the convenors.

Subject to the funeral arrangements being finalised, I tentatively suggest the committee meet on Tuesday next, 7 November, 1995.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The select committee adjourned at 4.25 p.m.

Top
Share