Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 84.
“What Deputy Ward is seeking to do, through his amendment, is move into this terrorist offences legislation with similar types of prohibitions. However, I think it is important that we keep a distinction between the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and, separately, the crime of terrorist activity. It may be from the point of view of presentation that Deputy Ward wishes, and he is entitled to say this, that war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide are forms of terrorism but legally, in our criminal justice system, it is important we distinguish between both of them. Looking at the amendments that have been tabled by Deputy Ward, amendment No. 1 provides an interpretation of the three matters: crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes.”
“Very many of the legitimate concerns Deputy Ward has identified in moving his amendment are dealt with in Irish law and legislation under the International Criminal Court Act 2006. In that legislation, we set out that in Ireland crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide are criminal offences. It is important that the world is aware that in Ireland you can be prosecuted for those crimes. It is also the case in Ireland, because of the Criminal Law Act 1997, that if you aid or abet crimes against humanity, genocide, or war crimes you are committing a criminal offence in Ireland. It is important to emphasise for anyone listening in that in Ireland we have a body of laws that deal with crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes and they are dealt with in our International Criminal Court legislation.”
“I thank Deputy Ward for moving his amendment. As he indicated at the outset, we are dealing with group 1, which comprises amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 11 to 14, inclusive. As Deputy Ward indicated, they are all in respect of issues associated with crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. Deputy Ward is being specific about saying these amendments are focused on the IDF. I have to point out, as I did on Committee Stage, that this legislation is about transposing the 2017 terrorist offences directive from the EU into Irish law and the way we are doing that is by updating and amending the (Criminal Justice) Terrorist Offences Act 2005 that has been in place for the past 20 years or so.”
“Before we go through the amendments, I want to acknowledge and thank Deputies for their engagement on the Bill on Committee Stage and now on Report Stage. I have noted and considered the issues raised by Deputies on Committee Stage and I look forward to working constructively with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Members of the House to ensure this important Bill can be passed.”
“24, 26 and 28 were ruled out of order because of communications from the Department of justice to the Cathaoirleach's office. I have been informed and instructed by officials in my Department that that never happened. There was communication in respect of amendments Nos. 1 and 51. There was no communication in respect of the other three amendments. In fact, as far as I am aware, those amendments were ruled out by the House. I do not want to get involved in a domestic dispute here but it is unsatisfactory from my point of view. While people are entitled to have a go at me, it was unfair to officials to say that they sinisterly went behind people's backs here and got the Cathaoirleach to rule out the three amendments which deal with ethnicity and nationality. It is not true.”
“That is why, since I have been in this role, I have been trying to expedite this legislation. Unfortunately, as a result of the House adjourning, those very important amendments and, indeed, the legislation itself will be delayed. As I said, that is a matter for the House. As a Minister who always comes respectfully to this House, I am annoyed that we cannot get on with the work here. Second, a lot of comment was made earlier on. By the way, I have no difficulty with Senators kicking me around the Seanad. As a Minister, I deserve to be properly harangued by Senators when they feel it is appropriate. However, I am concerned that comments were made about officials in the Department of justice, which, I have been informed, were incorrect. In particular, it was suggested that amendments Nos.”
“Aside from that, however, certainly in respect of amendment No. 26, which is the specific amendment dealing with recording ethnicity, my officials have instructed me that there was not any direction or issue in respect of that. Nonetheless, I will accept whatever responsibility I have in respect of it. If it is possible to put them in order, I would ask that the Leas-Chathaoirleach do so.”
“I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I am very pleased to be back in the Seanad. I was here yesterday discussing the Omagh Bill. I will be frank with Senators. I was working this morning on the legislation that is going through the House today and because of the pressure of work, I was not concentrating on what amendments were ruled out of order or not. Obviously, if there was communication between the Department of justice and the Cathaoirleach's office, although I was not aware of it, I am responsible for it. There are five amendments that have been ruled out of order. I have no difficulty if all of them are now ruled in order and heard. I am happy to proceed with them. I am instructed, however, that my officials did indicate that they thought amendment No. 1 would involve a charge.”
“I would like to see it called the victims tribunal and I would like to see it apply compensation to victims of criminal acts, certainly covering pain and suffering, as it does now, but other factors will have to be discussed and considered.”
“I have read the report from the Law Reform Commission and the Deputy will be pleased to note I have already changed the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The change I have introduced is to remove the prohibition on damages being paid in respect of pain and suffering. That was recommended within the report of Mr. Justice Clarke but also in the ruling of the Blanco judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union that came out last year. We will have to reform the criminal injuries compensation tribunal. It is on an informal, non-statutory basis but I would like to see it put on a statutory basis.”
“We do not live in a country where there is guilt by association. To answer the question, the reason persons did not get into the witness box in the past is because the law has now been changed. If you want to give character evidence in respect of a person convicted of a sexual offence, you now have to do it by going into the witness box or on affidavit. The benefit of doing it that way is you can be subject to cross-examination, which means that the counsel for the DPP will be able to question you on the content of your evidence. My view is people should be entitled to give character evidence in respect of an accused but that they have to be prepared to stand over it. That is why sending in letters which are informally written or without substance is improper and inappropriate.”
“The Deputy may want to live in a country where guilt by association operates, but, fortunately, we do not live in such a country. If somebody the Deputy knew did something inappropriate or improper-----”
“There will be people who deserve much longer sentences than others and for there to be some graded assessment by a court, it needs to know something about the offender. The alternative is to have mandatory sentences, as we do for murder, so the judge does not exercise any discretion.”
“I agree with Deputy Coppinger when she says abusers and people responsible for gender-based violence are manipulative. I met Naomi Long last Friday. She is the justice minister for Northern Ireland. She asked me to read the report about Katie Simpson's murder. I read it. It is a harrowing example of someone - the person responsible for her murder - who fooled the PSNI. It showed the level of manipulation that can exist. Deputy Coppinger suggested we simply ban any form of evidence being given in respect of an offender. That would be problematic. As I said, an important part of a judge's function is to understand an offender. There will be varying degrees of manipulative or malign offenders.”
“It will be the case that the judge needs to know something about the offender for the purpose of imposing a sentence. For instance, I am sure if a person were convicted of causing criminal damage to an American plane in Shannon, Deputy Coppinger would believe that person should be entitled to have some character evidence adduced for them at the trial. We can never say we should rule out any form of character evidence because it is essential for a judge to understand the offender in order to impose a sentence. However, certainly in respect of sexual offences, including rape, people who want to give character evidence have to do so by going into the witness box or by affidavit. There is a lot to be said for extending that to other serious offences.”
“I thank Deputy Coppinger for her question. As she will be aware, the law was recently changed in this area in respect of sexual offences. Under section 14 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Trafficking) Act 2024, it is now the case that people who want to give character evidence about a person convicted of a sexual offence have to do so either by affidavit or in the witness box. It has to be done on oath or affirmation. That is a positive change in the law. Deputy Coppinger's question seems to ask why this is ever necessary. As I said previously, sentencing is one of the most complex aspects of a judge's function. The judge has to deal with the nature of the offence and its impact on the victim when determining the sentence. However, the judge is also sentencing the offender.”
“While cases with criminal legal aid take significantly longer than those without, the outcomes are similar. This is a system that needs to be reformed.”
“That is correct. There was a detailed review carried out by my Department and what it established was that there were a number of structural issues which needed to be addressed: first, payment per appearance incentives adjournments; second, multiple certificates were granted for related cases which will increase costs and complexity; third, multiple solicitors assigned in the same firm for related charges; and, fourth, a highly-complex payment processing system creating a significant administrative burden. The review found that cases with criminal legal aid take an average of 313 calendar days to complete compared to 133 days for cases without. The weighted average appearances for cases with criminal legal aid is five, while the weighted average appearances for cases without criminal legal aid is just three.”
“There is a benefit to it. In terms of engagement, I have had very good engagement with the Bar Council and the Law Society. I have received submissions from them and offered to meet them again. I will happily meet them again.”
“There are obviously a variety of reasons for adjournments of a criminal trial in the District Court. What is concerning me is the fact that if we have short adjournments, they have a very negative impact on the efficiency of the system because cases are listed every two weeks, every three weeks or however long it is on a continuing basis. If we are paying a person per the number of appearances, that is going to incentivise the adjournment. These reforms will have a positive impact because when it comes to applications for adjournments, practitioners will take into account whether or not they are going to be ready for the hearing or the next stage of the trial at the adjourned date proposed. People will be much more careful about agreeing to an adjourned date in circumstances where they do not think they will be ready on that date.”
“It is also apparent that if we pay somebody per appearance, it is going to incentivise additional adjournments. Research was done that established that in cases where there was criminal legal aid, there would be five appearances where there was criminal legal aid and three where there was not.”
“Instead, it is about improving efficiencies and reducing unnecessary adjournments while still ensuring fair and sustainable remuneration for legal practitioners. As the Deputy knows, it is proposed to replace the current appearance-based sliding scale with a flat fee model for cases in the District Court, regardless of the number of appearances. A set generous fee higher than the fee at present will be payable to solicitors. The new flat fee will be set at a rate that provides for full restoration of the FEMPI cuts in line with the programme for Government commitment. I have to point out that part of the reason for my reform is because of a review conducted by my Department in respect of cases conducted in the District Court. On foot of that review, it was apparent to me that reform was required.”
“I thank Deputy Ó Murchú for his question. I certainly do not believe that there will be an exodus of our criminal law practitioners from the legal aid sphere as a result of the reforms I am introducing. As I said earlier, it is a very competitive sector. There are highly efficient and professional solicitors providing services to persons accused of criminal offences. I believe that will continue. I would not propose the reforms if I thought it would not. I looked at the criminal legal aid scheme and I am fully aware of the importance of the scheme in terms of protecting the right to a fair trial and ensuring individuals accused of serious offences have adequate protection. My proposed reform in the District Court is not intended to reduce the cost to the State in providing criminal legal aid.”
“Many of those buildings around the country were designed very effectively. There is money there to build them but when it comes to ancient buildings, there are issues in terms of what can arise.”
“The courthouses of Ireland are very interesting buildings. Last Friday, I was in the courthouse in Armagh, which is very similar to the other courthouses we inherited from the British around the country. Some of them, because of their antiquity, are in need of significant work, but their antiquity means most are protected structures. I know Dundalk Courthouse well. It is a very fine building in the centre of the town. It has a wonderful location in terms of generating business for the surrounding community. I have funding within the national development plan for the construction of new courthouses. It is an important part of my programme to ensure Courts Service facilities around the country are suitable. We have built many fine new courthouses over the years. I think particularly of Castlebar, which has a very fine new courthouse.”
“Any issues with it need to be resolved immediately and the entity responsible for paying for that is the company that built it and from which the State is contracting it.”
“I am disappointed to hear buckets are being used in Drogheda Courthouse. As already noted, it was built in 2017 on a landmark town centre site. If there are defects in the building, the owner or the constructor is liable for those defects. There is a recognition that any defects in the building must be fixed by the PPP company. It has done that and has paid for those works. If there are ongoing difficulties in respect of the courthouse, the company will have to meet that liability as well. It is essential we have courthouses that are adequate and appropriate. That is necessary not for the benefit of judges or lawyers but for the benefit of people who are going through the administration of justice and seeking access to justice. I will ask my officials and the Courts Service about Drogheda Courthouse.”
“I cannot give the Deputy an exact detailed breakdown of the charge because it is commercially sensitive and is protected under the terms of the PPP contract.”
“Drogheda Courthouse was the first of the projects to be handed over in June 2017 on a landmark town centre site beside the River Boyne. The total cost of the PPP contract covers the design, construction, financing and, importantly, maintenance and repair of the facility. Those costs are met through a single annual unitary charge, which represents a composite payment for all services provided under the contract. It should be noted that the risk and costs of the repairs fell under the ownership of the PPP company, not the Courts Service. The entity that paid for the repair works was not the State but the PPP company. The total capital funding allocated for courthouse capital works in 2025 amounted to €9.74 million. The total cost of the PPP contract is quite significant but, as I said, the State did not have to pay for it.”
“I acknowledge this is an issue of concern to the Deputy. I understand the flooding that occurred at Drogheda Courthouse on 13 January 2025 resulted from burst pipes. Following the completion of initial repair works, a walk-through inspection of the facility was carried out during the week commencing 20 January 2025. It was agreed at the time that the facility could reopen to the public on 28 January, noting that certain areas, including courtroom 1, would remain unavailable. Further works to courtroom 1 were completed in April 2025 and it became fully operational on 2 May 2025. That marked the completion of all repair works. As the Deputy is aware, Drogheda Courthouse is part of a seven-courthouse public private partnership, PPP, bundle, which was delivered under a 25-year concession period.”
“The use and repute test is used across the board in the Department. It is not targeting any particular group of individuals. It is not too much to expect, when it comes to assessing identification, that people are able to satisfy the Department that their name is the name they have used for two years and how they have been known by repute for the same period. As I said, I will have a look at this case if the Deputy sends me the information in respect of it.”
“On the issue the Deputy raised, it is important to emphasise there is nothing in the Gender Recognition Act that undermines or affects her constituent. The issue is the necessity for identification. If she sends me the application details, I will have them considered. Ultimately, even if the matter cannot be resolved, her constituent will be able to apply in a year.”
“If the Deputy sends me the details, I will be able to look at the issue. The naturalisation process is different from the process, say, for obtaining a marriage certificate. At the heart of naturalisation is the need for the Department to be able to identify the person who is seeking Irish citizenship. It is an essential part of the naturalisation process that people in my Department go back and examine the past of the individual seeking Irish citizenship to ensure that what he or she is saying is correct. There are factors that could preclude a person from achieving Irish citizenship. Let us remember Irish citizenship is not a right but a privilege we give to individuals based upon an application process.”
“Again, if the Deputy sends on the details to me, at least I will be able to consider the matter in the context of what has actually happened.”
“Use and repute is a critical, non-statutory method for proving identity, particularly when a person changes their name outside of marriage or civil partnership. It acts as a bridge between social identity - who people know a person as - and legal identity - who a person’s documents say they are. When proving identity at any stage of the naturalisation process, the citizenship division in my Department requires evidence that a name has been used consistently. This is the bedrock of proving a person’s identity while also helping to protect against identity fraud. I understand that some other Departments are currently reviewing their requirements for use and repute for two years where a person is in possession of a gender recognition certificate.”
“Where a person seeks to use a different name acquired through use and repute in the naturalisation process, my Department requires evidence that they have been using that new name for a period of at least two years. I am sure the Deputy can appreciate that establishing a person's identity is a critical part of the immigration and naturalisation process. I want to stress that this two-year requirement is not contained in, and does not arise from, the Gender Recognition Act 2015. Rather, it reflects a broader administrative practice. It is important that a person seeking naturalisation is properly identified so that, among other things, appropriate checks can be undertaken. It is also important in establishing their new status as a naturalised citizen that it is done in a name that they are known as.”
“I thank the Deputy for her question and would appreciate it if she would send on the details of the case because I was not able to identify the issues on the basis of the question. It is a complicated issue and I just want to give the Deputy the following reply. Under the Irish legal system, a person’s name is the name by which they are known or which they commonly use. For most people, evidence of their name is most commonly provided and accepted in the form of a birth certificate, which, for example, may be supported by a marriage certificate in the case of a change of name on marriage. The name by which a person is known by is acquired through use and repute.”
“Of course, the interests of survivors, victims or complainants in a trial must be prioritised but I cannot completely negate somebody who is being accused. If there was a person whose political views Deputy Coppinger agreed with-----”
“Every day of the week we read in our newspapers about people - men - being convicted of rape and serious sexual offences. That is happening consistently within the criminal justice system. Part of the consequence of that is that it should provide, and I hope it does, strength to other survivors and victims of sexual offences to know that if they come forward, they will get justice. I also know that An Garda Síochána is much more effective now in dealing with these complaints than it was ten or 15 years ago. My job is to ensure that I provide as much support as possible for individuals to travel through the criminal justice process. I also have to take into account, however, the requirements of a fair trial. I agree that a trial requires consideration of interests.”
“I have engaged with people across the board but, ultimately, I have to do what I believe is in the best interests of the public and survivors while also recognising that there has to be protection for a fair trial. The proposals I am bringing forward will achieve that and, if this legislation is enacted, we will be in a position a year or two later where it will be much more seldom that counselling notes are disclosed in criminal trials.”
“What I have to do here and what the House has to do, ultimately, is weigh up an area where there are conflicting rights. On the one hand, there is the right to privacy, which is an absolutely essential right, and on the other hand there is the right to a fair trial, which is also an essential right. Neither right is absolute but I have to ensure that I balance both of them. The legislation I am bringing forward and the amendments I have tabled will significantly tilt in favour of the right to privacy but it cannot make it absolute. I hear what the Deputy is saying with regard to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. It sent a submission to me, which I did consider.”
“I cannot categorise a group of evidence and say we can never look at that, which is what a total ban would effectively do. That would be unconstitutional. What I am introducing is that there will have to be a hearing and a judge will have to look at it. The only time that information will be disclosed is if a judge, having looked at it, says that is relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.”
“The unambiguous advice I have received from the Attorney General and the advice that important stakeholders in this area have received is that a total ban on counselling notes would be unconstitutional. It would be very detrimental to the interests of survivors of sexual abuse if I was to introduce legislation that got me some plaudits here but was struck down by the courts within a year as being unconstitutional, so I will not do that. However, the proposals I am bringing forward will create a statutory form of privilege that will ensure that the only time information or documentation evidencing a counselling note is provided is if that note evidences something that is in the interests of justice and without it, there would be an unfair trial.”
“I thank the Deputy very much for her question. I am committed to trying to ensure that the situation that operates at present, where counselling notes are routinely provided to the legal team of an accused, comes to an end. I brought forward proposals to the version of the miscellaneous provisions Bill on Second Stage and I am going to come forward with even further amendments in terms of that legislation. I have listened to what people in this House and some of the important stakeholders have said, and I am going to introduce a statutory form of non-disclosure for counselling notes. The Deputy’s question asks that I should ban them completely. In listening to people, be they in this House or stakeholders, I also have to listen to the Attorney General and the advice I have received.”
“Something is happening, therefore, when cases with criminal legal aid are having many more adjournments than is the case with those that do not. I think this proposal will make the system much more efficient and help the administration of justice.”
“I have had engagement with the representative associations. In fact, I wrote to them previously saying I was available to meet again if they wished to do so. I have no doubt that I will hear back from them. In terms of what the Deputy said about the provision of legal aid, it is a very competitive business among solicitors. I believe we are not going to lose that level of competition because of the reform I am proposing. The Deputy gave an example of what happens in the drug treatment court, but the report I considered from the Department identified that the weighted average of the number of appearances for cases with criminal legal aid is five, while the weighted average of the number of appearances for cases without criminal legal aid is just over three.”
“Additionally, multiple certificates granted for related cases increase costs and complexity, multiple solicitors are assigned in the same firm for related charges and a highly complex payment processing system creates a significant administrative burden. I would not introduce this scheme if I thought it was going to undermine the rights of individuals to a fair defence.”
“I also have to take into account that the number of criminal cases in the District Court has decreased. Notwithstanding that, however, expenditure on criminal legal aid in the District Court has nearly doubled, from €19 million in 2015 to €37 million in 2024, despite the number of cases having decreased. The review I looked at identified a series of structural issues in the administration of justice in the criminal legal aid scheme. For example, payment per appearance incentivises additional adjournments. I think this is just clearly the case. If we compare cases in the District Court that are not funded by criminal legal aid to those that are, we can see that there are many more adjournments in the latter context.”
“Officials from my Department met with the Bar Council and the Law Society in May, July and October 2025, and again in March 2026. I offered further meetings and I will continue to engage with them.”
“The proposed reform is intended to make the system work better for all concerned by making it more efficient, reducing unnecessary adjournments and speeding up case resolution. The new flat fee will be set at a rate that provides for full restoration of the so-called financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, cuts in line with the programme for Government commitment. I will, obviously, be reversing those cuts and restoring fees from 1 July as well. My Department carried out a review of more than 350,000 District Court cases that took place during 2022 and 2023. A number of issues were identified during that review that I simply had to address. I am engaging extensively with relevant stakeholders, including legal professionals.”