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 34 of 84.
“If somebody comes in and they claim international protection, we tell them they have to go to the screening centre in Rathmines as that is where they will be checked on the Eurodac system and where screening and seeking to verify their identity will take place. It is a perfectly legitimate request to ask a person to go to Rathmines for that to happen. In fact, we would probably pay for the taxi for them to go to Rathmines for that to happen. People are talking about arrest and detention, but I will explain the only issue we are talking about here.”
“The whole purpose of international protection is persons saying that they are fleeing persecution, or they are fleeing war because they are of a nationality, or were resident in a place which is subject to war and persecution. The only obligation we are saying when somebody arrives in under this legislation is that "Would you go please to a screening centre and at the screening centre you will have your application process, you will have your identity verified and you will be screened through the Eurodac system". That is the only thing we are talking about here. When somebody arrives in they will be told they have to go to a screening centre. Under the legislation I will designate screening centres. Let us just use an example. Let us say we decide that a place up in Rathmines, for example, is to be a screening centre.”
“The obligation we are discussing here is that when somebody arrives in and claims international protection or asylum, whether it be at a port or directly at the International Protection Office, under this legislation if enacted and from 12 June onwards, we will have a situation where people will be assessed on Eurodac and they will have their details taken on an EU-wide information system that will contain data in respect of individuals who have sought asylum. It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do to try to identify individuals who come into Ireland claiming asylum. It is essential in terms of trying to assess the application for international protection to know in fact where does the person originate from.”
“Part 2 of the Bill refers to Eurodac and screening. This is where the State is putting in what it says are the obligations a person who is applying for asylum must comply with if they want to apply for asylum in Ireland. I think everyone in this House must agree that if somebody claims asylum in Ireland, we are entitled to ask them to follow a number of procedural steps in order that we can assess and appraise their application. I do not think anyone could object to that. It happens in every country in the world.”
“I thank Senators for the amendments they have moved. I thank them all for their contributions. I spoke yesterday about how in this legislation what I am seeking to do, and in fairness what Senators are seeking to do as well, is to try to balance on the one hand the rights of an asylum applicant with, on the other hand, the legitimate rights of the State to try to ensure it can exert control over the asylum process. We spoke earlier, in the context of unaccompanied minors, about how it is very important for the State, and it is in the legislation, to put it in place representatives or provisional representatives. That is an example of where the legislation is tilted in favour of the asylum applicant. What we are discussing here in the context of these amendments is the obligation that arises in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Bill.”
“It is possible that services can be contracted out. It is not envisaged that we are going to start privatising the work that is being done at present by immigration officers. They do a difficult job very sensitively. Obviously, somebody has to make an assessment in respect of an unaccompanied minor. It cannot be left the minor to determine whether it is in his or her best interests or not. It has to be somebody in a position of authority. As the Senator can see from this legislation, the State has put the interests of the unaccompanied minor first and foremost in this legislation. It is only fair that in circumstances where the State representative believes there is a threat to the minor or it would be in the best interests of the minor to be detained for a very short period of time, that should be permitted.”
“It is assessed by the member or the officer involved. I think that is a fair assessment. The individual who is concerned - the representative of the State - is looking to ensure it is in the best interests of the minor. I cannot think of any other person who would be in a position to make that determination. I will listen to the Senator if she has another suggestion.”
“The last requirement which is set out in section 24(12)(c) is that it is assessed by the member or officer that the detention is in the unaccompanied minor's best interests and safeguards the unaccompanied minor. The only time there will be detention for a very short period is if it is believed to be in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor and it safeguards the unaccompanied minor. Technically, Senator Higgins is correct to say that the Bill provides for the detention of minors but we have to be clear and accurate in terms of the circumstances in which that is permitted. It is only permitted when it is in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor.”
“116, the functions to a large extent will be functions that at present are carried out by Tusla, which is simply accompanying minors through the process, attending at the interview with the minor and other such functions. Some extra functions will arrive as a result of the amendment provided for in section 116. While I am on my feet, I will respond to what Senator Higgins referred to. She spoke about the fact that the legislation allows for the detention of minors. Technically, that is correct but we need to be clear about the circumstances in which the detention of a minor is permitted under the legislation, in particular under section 24 at present. There is a cumulative list of requirements that should apply before the detention of a minor is permitted. I will mention only one of them.”
“As we will see from subsection (2) of what will be the new section 47, the requirement will be to meet with the unaccompanied minor and take into account the minor's views, to assist the unaccompanied minor in the provision of information, and to provide the unaccompanied minor with information. It is all set out as to exactly what the requirements are. The concerns of Senators Black and Higgins are that this will be far too much work if a person is entitled to represent 30 unaccompanied minors. The limit of 30, as it is provided for in the legislation, is an outer limit provided for in the directives and in the regulations. It is expected that, operationally, the number of minors in a representative's caseload will be lower than 30. Notwithstanding the specification of what is contained within amendment No.”
“That is the reason for not accepting amendment No. 100. I believe the provisions that are there in terms of "as soon as possible" will be more effective. Senator Black also referred to what is a very important amending provision that is coming in during this debate, if voted for by the Seanad and enacted, which is contained in amendment No. 116. She correctly points out that it sets out in considerable detail the functions of provisional representative persons and representative persons. It extends to two pages. It is important that the functions of the representatives are set out very precisely.”
“That was one of the issues that was raised by Deputies and it was specifically raised by Senator Ryan in her proposed amendment. In respect of that proposed amendment - amendment No. 100 - it is important to point out that the requirement under the directive is that somebody would be appointed as a provisional representative as soon as possible and that a long-term representative would be appointed within 15 days. Senator Ryan's amendment sought to have a period of three days specified in respect of that but I believe that what will happen is that the personal representative will be appointed very shortly after the minor arrives in the State, and most probably usually on the day the minor arrives. "As soon as possible" is intended to make sure that provisional representatives are appointed at the earliest possible time.”
“I thank Senator Nicole Ryan for her amendments, and other Senators for their contributions. What we are debating at present is chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Bill, which concerns the appointment of representatives for unaccompanied minors. I am well aware that this is an area of significant interest and importance to Senators. It is also a very significant part of the legislation. As people will be aware, under the Bill there will be a requirement on me to designate a competent authority for the purpose of being the provisional representative or the representative persons. One of the issues that is contained within the Bill at present in section 44 is that there will be a requirement for persons to be appointed as representatives as soon as possible in respect of the unaccompanied minor.”
“118 to 128, inclusive, concern section 48 and the cessation of the representative's role. I propose that the text of section 48(1) should be revised to clarify the circumstances in which a representative's role ceases. Amendment No. 124 introduces a new subsection, which provides for the cessation of the appointment of a representative organisation. Amendments Nos. 125 to 128, inclusive, then provide for the interaction between the cessation of a representative person and a representative organisation. Amendment No. 129 is a technical amendment related to the changes made as part of amendment No. 16.”
“114 relates to the caseloads assigned to each representative. My own amendment, No. 116, provides for this matter and therefore it is not necessary to accept amendment No. 114. Amendment No. 115 is related to amendment No. 113 and facilitates the work of representatives by ensuring they are provided with the decisions and determinations sent to unaccompanied minors. Amendment No. 116 deletes the current section 47 and replaces it with a clarified text that more effectively describes the functions of provisional representatives and representatives. The text now emphasises the central function of the representative in safeguarding the best interests and well-being of unaccompanied minors, as well as setting out the caseload, independence and training requirements to be applied. Amendments Nos.”
“The appropriate places for such provision are the Children First Act 2015 and the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012. My officials and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel are finalising the text of these provisions and they will be brought forward on Report Stage. Therefore, I cannot accept amendment No. 107. Amendments Nos. 108 to 111, inclusive, are technical amendments which relate to amendment No. 106 and its clarifications to section 44. Amendment No. 112, like amendment No. 107, relates to training and vetting for representatives. It cannot be accepted for the same reasons as I have stated in relation to amendment No. 107. Amendment No. 113 facilitates the work of representatives by providing them with access to the unaccompanied minors file. Amendment No.”
“Amendment No. 106 reorganises section 44 to clarify the procedure for representative organisations to appoint provisional representatives and representatives. Amendment No. 107 concerns regular training for representatives and the prohibition of representatives having a record of criminal offences concerning children. Training requirements for representatives are covered in section 43 and the revised section 47, and will be further developed by the regulations to be made under section 50. I believe that further provision is unnecessary. Individuals with a record of criminal offences concerning children will, of course, be precluded from acting as representatives and provisional representatives.”
“The proposed amendment does not align with the directive or regulation requirements, which require that a provisional representative is appointed as soon as possible, and that a long-term representative is appointed within 15 days. The proposed amendment would reduce the rights of unaccompanied minors in the State and I do not propose to accept it. Amendments Nos. 101 to 103, inclusive, are technical amendments related to the improved layout of the Chapter. The text proposed to be deleted is now provided for more coherently as part of the revised section 47, which is set out in amendment No. 116. Amendment No. 104 seeks to ensure that a representative may be appointed to no more than 30 unaccompanied minors at one time. As my own amendment No. 116 provides explicitly for this matter, I do not see any need to accept amendment No. 104.”
“I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 100, 104, 107, 112 or 114. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are simple technical amendments related to amendment No. 106, which I will outline later. Amendment No. 23 is a technical amendment related to amendment No. 98. Amendment No. 98 provides for the designation of the competent authority in respect of representatives. Amendment No. 29 clarifies the notification procedure when it comes to the attention of a relevant body that an applicant may be an unaccompanied minor. Amendment No. 100 seeks to require the appointment of a representative within the specified period of three working days, and provides that in the interim, necessary measures should be taken to safeguard the welfare and best interests of the minor.”
“For these reasons, a wet signature is currently required to provide valid consent to the vetting process. While initial engagement can take place online, a face-to-face element remains necessary to verify identity and obtain handwritten consent.”
“It would be primary legislation. I will come back to the Deputy on that. It will not be coming in the very near future but it is something I am committed to doing. It will also require updated technical systems to support the revised approach. When I was down in Tipperary with the vetting bureau, I raised the issue of the wet signature for vetting. Currently, the bureau does not accept digital signatures as their use presents security and integrity risks within the vetting process. I was told these include potential disputes over identity, intent and the possibility of document tampering. Garda authorities have also highlighted vulnerabilities associated with digital signatures, including identity theft and social engineering attacks, which could significantly increase the risk of impersonation.”
“In practice and subject to a general requirement that vetting be renewed every three years, it is envisaged that this will mean that when a person is vetted for the work they will be, or are likely to be, involved in as part of their employment or volunteering within identified risk categories, the person will not be required to repeat the process if they were to move to another role within the same risk category.”
“One of the consequences of being a public representative is that people only ever come to us when they have issues of concern. They are never going to come to us and say, "Deputy, that is a fantastic vetting process. I managed to get a response within eight days." I am conscious that aspects of the current vetting system result in a highly segmented process. It should be updated to ensure the burden of seeking vetting disclosures, particularly on volunteers and organisations working in their communities, is minimised to the greatest extent possible while maintaining the necessary high standards. Further to the work carried out by the Garda vetting review group, steps are now being taken to implement key changes to the process that will ensure it remains robust and effective, while improving the service to customers.”
“That is an understandable reason for there being a delay, but it is important to point out that, as I said, over 630,000 applications came in last year, and the bureau processed the vast majority of them very promptly.”
“A person who has been vetted to coach a GAA team should be able to then move over and coach a soccer team without having to get vetting done again. Much of that can be done by the organisations themselves, such as the sporting organisations. The Teaching Council has a very good mechanism whereby it permits transferability of vetting from one school to another and the vetting moves with the teacher when they move across the school. There is also an issue in respect of wet signatures and whether online signatures would be permissible. There was concern expressed to me by An Garda Síochána in respect of that. From its perspective, one reason for delays is that sometimes individuals have been abroad for several years. That can give rise to significant delay because the bureau is dependent on getting information from abroad.”
“I met with the Garda National Vetting Bureau in Tipperary town about two months ago. I went down there to get an update from the bureau, but also to communicate some of the concerns Deputy Ward and other Deputies have expressed to me. It is important to point out that the vetting bureau of An Garda Síochána received over 6,330 vetting applications in 2025. The current processing time for 85% of those is eight to nine working days. For the majority of applications, it manages to produce an outcome in very short order. There are obviously some improvements that could be made. One thing I mentioned at my meeting with the gardaí in the vetting bureau is that we should allow for transferability of vetting.”
“The majority, or 60%, stated they found it difficult to maintain their career as a Garda member while also managing their family life, 40% stated that the commuting and working distance from their homes was a significant deciding factor and another cohort expressed a view that poor management was a factor for their decision to leave. The numbers are low but many of the people who are leaving and doing these exit interviews, those who have resigned, are doing so because of a work-life balance, which happens in every walk of life. People decide the work just does not suit their lifestyle. However, I am pleased to say the number of resignations is very low.”
“The important thing is that we get Garda numbers continuously going up, which is happening. There are always going to be retirements and some small level of resignations but, cumulatively, we want to see the figures of attested gardaí rising, and we are seeing that. The Deputy asked about exit interviews. The Garda offers exit interviews to all individuals who leave the organisation, with the exception of those who are dismissed. They were established to determine longitudinal teams in relation to organisational attrition, but they highlighted some useful issues. In 2024, 39 exit interviews were completed.”
“I do not think we will see that number taking up retirement. However, it is an issue we need to be aware of. It also emphasises the need to ensure that recruitment is ongoing.”
“I should have answered that question because the Deputy did ask it. There is a cumulative figure of 1,792 gardaí that will become eligible to retire by 2028. That, of course, does not mean that this number will retire over this period, only that they will be eligible to do so. For example, a Garda member may have 30 years of service or more at age 55 but may opt not to retire for the next seven years until they reach the mandatory retirement age of 62. The Commissioner can, with my consent, extend the age of retirement of a Garda member beyond 62, where this is in the interests of the efficiency of the force. I am always pleased to see applications coming before me from the Commissioner for the extension of a retirement age beyond 62. A lot of people do not want to retire at 55. It is far too young. The figure, as I said, is 1,792.”
“The number of resignations has been low for the years to which I referred. In 2021, there were 89 resignations; in 2022, there were 106; in 2023, there were 167; in 2024, there were 137; and, as I said, last year, there were 141. That is indicative of low levels of resignation from the force, which is good. It is not something I am complacent about. I want to ensure that people who join up to An Garda Síochána find it a fulfilling career and that their terms and conditions are good. It is part of my function to ensure that resignations are kept as low as they are. It is a good sign because when you look at the Met, the PSNI or police forces in other places, you will see resignations are much higher than that.”
“I thank Deputy Gannon for his question. I alluded to this in my response to Deputy Carthy earlier. In terms of resignations, 141 gardaí resigned from An Garda Síochána in 2025. That is a very low number. The number of gardaí is over 14,300 and, therefore, it is less than 1%. In terms of the number of retirements and resignations together over the past five years, 382 gardaí resigned or retired in 2021, 446 in 2022, 486 in 2023, 377 in 2024 and 359 in 2025. As I said, those figures include resignations and retirements. There is nothing we can do about gardaí who get to the retirement age and who want to retire but I suppose the figure that is of concern to me - I do not know if it is a concern to the Deputy - and that I would be interested in is that for resignations.”
“As the Deputy indicated, if it was the case - and I know these are horrific offences - that it was a very naive 18-year-old who foolishly looked at something online and saved it as compared to somebody who, for profit, was generating images of children for sexual abuse and for the purpose of generating income and who had a series of offences, those two offenders would have to be treated differently. I am concerned that if we had a minimum mandatory sentence, it could require no discretion on the part of the court.”
“The Deputy raises an interesting point about the use of mandatory minimum sentences. We did that previously in this House in respect of firearms offences where we said there was to be a mandatory sentence of, I think, five years and the Supreme Court looked at that and said it was unconstitutional because it did not give any exceptionality or discretion to a court. Introducing minimum mandatory sentences could get us into significant difficulties because we have to allow some discretion to a court.”
“I am not proposing to bring forward legislation at this stage to amend the provisions in respect of sentencings that are contained within the 1998 and 2017 legislation but it is important to be aware that under the sentencing guidelines, we can and hope to see the Judiciary set out guidelines for certain types of criminal offences.”
“Sentencing is a very complex area of a judge's function. Generally, what we do in this House is set out what the maximum sentence can be. Sometimes we put in a mandatory sentence - such as in the case for murder where there is the common law mandatory sentence of life in prison - but, in general, we set maximum sentences and give leeway to the Judiciary to decide where to go. Obviously, no offence is going to be similar. No offender is going to be similar, as Deputy O'Flynn will be aware, even in the area of child sexual abuse. Obviously, somebody who is a repeat offender would merit a much stronger custodial sentence than a person who was convicted for the first time.”
“Under the 1998 Act, there are penalties up to life imprisonment for child trafficking and taking a child for sexual exploitation or up to 14 years for the participation of a child in pornographic performances.”
“Among EU member states, England and Wales, Ireland’s penalties across the 20 offences are on average higher than the vast majority of other countries. A review conducted by my Department indicates that Ireland's penalties to address child sexual abuse offences are among the most punitive in Europe and far exceed the maximum sentence requirements set out in the 2011 child sexual abuse directive. The Deputy may be aware that directive is being renegotiated at present. There needs to be a new child sexual abuse directive within the EU considering developments that have arisen. If we look at the penalties under some of the legislation, whether the 1998 Act or the 2017 sexual offences Act, we can see that the penalties range up to ten to 14 years.”
“I thank Deputy O'Flynn for this question and the related Questions Nos. 20 and 22. I recognise the profound and lasting harm caused by offences involving child sexual abuse material, CSAM. What makes this offence particularly pernicious is the fact that when it is done online, there is a continuation of that abuse and damage to the child as a result of the repeated distribution of it online. That is an approach that has to be taken into account when looking at the uniqueness of this offence. As Deputy O'Flynn will be aware, there is a range of offences under the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 to address all forms of such abuse. The Act provides for very severe penalties, including for the most serious offences, with a maximum penalty of up to life imprisonment.”
“I know it is an issue of concern to the Deputy and it may arise in the future but the important thing is to put in place a statutory regime that enables access in certain limited circumstances and that very strong safeguards are put in place. If strong safeguards are in place, the Deputy will not have too much to be worried about.”
“I agree with the Deputy that any proposal like this should be considered and progressed carefully and cautiously. What we are trying to do is balance rights. The rights about which the Deputy is particularly concerned are obviously the rights of privacy, which have to be protected. We do not want to see a situation where the State is able to stick its nose into legitimate communications that do not involve criminal activity by individuals. On the other side of the scale is the fact we need to be able to investigate serious criminal behaviour but at present we do not have access to a lot of information that would be of use in investigating serious criminal behaviour. The Deputy mentioned a number of issues in terms of type of software that can be used. That is not an issue of concern at present.”
“A lot of serious criminal activity is being communicated at present with the benefit of encryption. I need to ensure that gardaí can gain access to such encrypted messages because they contain a lot of detailed information that will be of use in the investigation of serious offences.”
“It is completely outdated, and it is not just me who is saying that. The judges who conduct the reviews of the work that I conduct under that 1993 legislation have repeatedly stated that the legislation is outdated. What I am proposing to do is to bring forward legislation that will have very significant safeguards in place. That is a legitimate concern of Deputy Gannon and many others. The safeguards that I am going to ensure will be in place will be such that there will be some form of judicial authorisation of interception requests. There will also be a requirement that agencies requesting an interception will have to outline any issues regarding privileged material, should that arise in any unusual circumstances. Obviously, it is also important to be able to access encrypted messages.”
“I thank Deputy Gannon for this interesting question. I announced recently that the Government had approved my proposal to start the process of drafting a new communications interception and lawful access Bill that will update the legislation that is there at present. We can all appreciate that there are circumstances when it is necessary and appropriate for An Garda Síochána to be able to access messages or communications between individuals when gardaí are investigating serious criminal offences. We have seen cases in our courts previously where the communication of messages between individuals has been centrally important in securing convictions for murder, serious child sexual abuse, serious armed robbery or violence. The legislation that I operate under at present was developed and enacted in 1993.”
“It is a difficult scenario for An Garda Síochána but its members are really advancing the interests of victims now and we are beginning to see that. Many people who come out of court as a result of domestic cases praise An Garda Síochána for the support they got.”
“I agree that data in this area is extremely important. If I have data on outcomes in domestic abuse hearings, I will certainly put it into the public domain, if possible, because it would be important to do so. There have been very significant improvements on the part of An Garda Síochána in recent years in dealing with domestic abuse. I have engaged with protective units within An Garda Síochána that deal specifically with domestic abuse. I will not identify the areas where I have engaged with them but, regrettably, they are very busy. There is a high level of professionalism and knowledge on the part of gardaí who are dealing with what is a really difficult type of policing requirement. In many instances, they are called late in the evening, alcohol may have been consumed and there is a domestic row.”
“Cuan is actively collaborating with statutory agencies and organisations to ensure effective responses to reduce the incidence and duration of homelessness arising from domestic violence and to support pathways for long-term accommodation for victims. The demand for safe accommodation remains high and Cuan continues to work with services and agencies to support victim survivor progression and, where appropriate, safe return. Individuals who are victims of domestic abuse need to be aware of the statutory powers that are in place to enable them to get barring orders against an abusing partner. That is something that is not being used as much as I would like. However, I am conscious that it takes time when an application is made. There is a period before the order can be made by the court to remove the abuser from the home.”
“I will be discussing this with Cuan but, ultimately, it is a matter for this House and the Seanad to determine whether new legislation is required. My own view is that it is not required. What is there in terms of the use of barring orders should be used more, availed of more and provided for more by the courts.”
“My Department is working to develop a new policy on removal orders to take offenders out of the home in high-risk cases. In particular, new powers are under active consideration that would allow gardaí to intervene in cases where they believe there is a high risk of domestic violence offences being committed. Deputy Boland will be aware that emergency barring orders can be sought under section 9 of the 2018 legislation on domestic violence and that is something that needs to be invoked more. An order under section 9 may not exceed eight working days and further emergency barring orders may be made against a respondent within a month of the expiry of a previous barring order where exceptional circumstances justify this. I am aware that those statutory provisions are available and I would like to see more women using them.”
“As I indicated in my response to Deputy Ó Cearúil earlier, we have to be very careful when discussing the issue of women fleeing domestic violence that we do not present the solution as being removing the woman from the house and putting her, long term, into emergency accommodation in a refuge or a safe home. That cannot be the long-term solution. Refuges or safe homes are needed because sometimes there is an emergency requirement, on a short-term basis, for a woman and her children to leave the home where the abuser is. Ultimately, however, what should be happening if a woman is being abused within a domestic relationship in a home that both partners own or are in a joint tenancy is not that the woman is forced to leave, but the man, the abuser.”