I move amendment No. 30:
In page 14, subsection (1), line 13, to delete "and" and substitute "on notice to the other party but".
In many cases, it is reasonable that notice should be given to the other party. I do not know if the Minister feels this would dilute the measures available but would it not be possible to include this provision? It is only to make people aware that proceedings are being issued.
Deputy Keogh took an alternative view in the case of the interim barring order.
It was not an alternative view. It is fair to let people know what is about to occur.
Section 9 of the Bill provides that where an application is made for a safety, barring or protection order, the court may, in the same proceedings, make an order under the Guardianship of Infants Act, an order for maintenance under the Family Law Act, 1976, an order in relation to the Family Home Protection Act, 1976, or an order under the Child Care Act, 1991.
The effect of Deputy Keogh's amendment would be to prevent the court from dealing with matters of custody maintenance, etc., unless prior notification had been given to the other party that such questions would be raised in the proceedings. I fully appreciate the Deputy's concerns to ensure that parties will have notification, but the fact that the court must satisfy itself that it is appropriate to deal with the custody, maintenance questions etc, in the proceedings fully protects the positions of the parties and in the circumstances, I ask Depty Keogh to withdraw her amendment.
There may well be cases when a maintenance order or an order under the Family Home Protection Act would be necessary and appropriate and regarded as such by the court and the parties involved. The facility should be there for the court to do that in an appropriate case. These provisions can be interconnected.
It is reasonable to suggest the respondents should be notified if a court makes a wider order so he — it is normally the male party in most cases — may be aware of it since a wide range of orders are included here. Deputy Keogh's proposal is reasonable and the Minister should try to address it.
I think it is a necessary provision. A case could come before the courts higlighting a situation affecting a child, for example. It might arise on an application for a barring, safety or protection order. It may become apparent in the hearing that some other urgent action was necessary under one of these other protective acts and a court may feel it necessary to make that order there and then. Of course, when the order was made, the party against whom it was made, if they were not in the court — although they would normally be present — would have to be notified. However, there could be cases where a court would consider it appropriate that a supplementary order, for the protection of that child or to assist its mother, be made there and then. It would not necessarily arise often but that power should be vested in the court in case it felt it was necessary and appropriate to use it.
Those wider orders would include maintenance, for instance?
That is right. It could turn out that the child was being abused or was a victim of violence. When the matter is at hearing, it could be that both parents will be in the court.
If both parents were in the court——
It does not arise then.
I appreciate it could arise.
It needs to be there to cover that too because a summons would not be issued before the court.
One would not be aware in advance?
That is correct. A summons would not have been issued for that purpose. It is in ease of an applicant and a child in a case——
Physical abuse is a different question. However, I am sure from his practise the Minister appreciates there are complaints about variations to maintenance orders without the full facts being on the table when such decisions are made. This is one type of situation we want to try to avoid if possible and provide an opportunity for people to respond to any application for a wider order.
It is a matter which is left to the discretion of the court and it can be safely relied on to bring this into play if necessary and appropriate. It would not do so in any capricious way. It might arise in a case involving a barring or safety order where a child had been a victim of violence and the child was being neglected. The judge on investigation could find that money was not being paid by the person responsible to maintain the child. The other party could say they had been pressing for it, etc. but had not received a penny to maintain the child. One could say it is urgent and the matter requires immediate attention; it is outrageous.
It could be that the other person is there and they would be asked about the situation. They could say they did not pay it or whatever and they could be ordered to pay it from then on. Without the provision the judge would be unable to do this. He would have to say to the person to go back to the court office, issue a summons and start the entire rigmarole all over again. Whereas, if they are all before the court and something serious emerges, such as the case I outlined, the judge may decide, if he feels there is an urgent need for attention, to take a certain course there and then.
There is no disagreement in that regard. My point arises where a person is not present and does not know it is about to happen.
That is a matter for the court and it would not do that. The only circumstances, I suggest, where a court would make an order without the respondent being present would be if it was an urgent matter referable to an interim barring order or there were urgent, unusual or exceptional circumstances which required immediate action. Otherwise, the judge would say the respondent was entitled to notice and there was nothing immediate or urgent about the matter. That is the distinction between notice and no notice. It is a weapon to be used by the court in an appropriate case. Such cases arise and if the provision did not exist, the court would have to send the applicant back to the court office to take out a fresh summons on a completely fresh matter.
I accept the Minister's argument. With regard to trying to achieve a balance, it is fair that people receive notice if something is to be done of which they are not aware. I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33 form a composite proposal and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 15, subsection (1) (d), lines 13 and 14, to delete "the applicant referred to in paragraph (a)" and substitute "the person for whose benefit the safety order or protection order was made".
The three amendments are technical drafting amendments.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 15, subsection (1) (e), lines 16 and 17, to delete "the applicant referred to in paragraph (a) "and substitute "the person for whose benefit the order was made."
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 15, subsection (1) (e), line 20, to delete "applicant" and substitute "person."
