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 40 of 84.
“Article 16 states: For the purposes of the administrative procedure, free legal counselling shall include the provision of: (a) guidance on and an explanation of the administrative procedure including information on rights and obligations during that procedure; (b) assistance on the lodging of the application and guidance on: (i) the different procedures under which the application may be examined and the reasons for the application of those procedures; (ii) the rules related to the admissibility of an application; (iii) legal issues arising in the course of the procedure, including information on how to challenge a decision rejecting an application in accordance with Articles 67, 68 and 69. That is what we are required to do in terms of the provision of legal counselling.”
“The administrative procedure regulation that I am transposing in parts of the legislation here sets out a clear distinction between what is required at the first stage and what is required at the second stage. The obligation at the second stage is much higher and much more costly than that at the first stage. However, there is a definition of "legal counselling" contained within Article 16 of the administrative procedure regulation. In fairness to Deputy Kelly, he included that definition in amendment No. 9, which unfortunately for him was ruled out of order.”
“I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I am aware that this is an issue of genuine concern to people in this House. The first thing I want to say is that I should and I will bring forward an amendment to define "legal counselling". I cannot, however, accept Deputy Carthy's amendment. The reason I cannot is because, under the Deputy's amendment, he goes further than what is envisaged by legal counselling and says that it should include legal advice provided by a practising solicitor or barrister. What I am required to do, under the administrative procedure regulation, is to ensure that at first stage - what is now the IPO stage - legal counselling is provided to an applicant. I have a higher obligation when it comes to the second appeal stage. At that stage, I have to provide free legal assistance and representation in the appeal.”
“That is the benefit here of what will be in this legislation and the subsequent returns regulation of which we hope to be part that will try to instill a greater and more efficient mechanism of stating that if somebody has applied for international protection in one jurisdiction already and they come to another, it is inadmissible and they have to go back to the first jurisdiction.”
“If the UK was in the EU, many of these issues could be resolved in that the UK would be part of the returns regulation, which will hopefully be agreed, and there would be a mechanism for it to apply. One thing the EU has not been good at, which Deputy Tóibín mentioned earlier, is the operation of the Dublin III regulation. It does not work. At the first meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council I attended, the German Minister for interior affairs emphasised that the Dublin regulation does not work. We need a new procedure.”
“PNR is used for serious criminal activity. It is not used for international protection. Even if that was in place, we would still need to have a mechanism on the Border to check people. We must be honest and realistic about this. The Garda can do some stops in terms of stopping buses or checking individuals but in terms of using something like PNR, people would have to be checked as they go North from South or come South from North. No one in this House wants that. It is a really difficult situation we find ourselves in. Everyone may be able to identify the obvious solution is Irish unity. We do not have that. I must deal with the reality of on the island of Ireland an open border with another non-EU country. It creates a huge challenge.”
“I will deal with Deputy Farrelly's point first. "Not beyond the applicant's control" may include circumstances where an applicant is outside of the jurisdiction out of their own control and taken outside the jurisdiction. The purpose there is to try absolve them in respect of that. In reply to Deputy Ó Súilleabháin, I can do many things in this Bill. I cannot get Irish unity in the legislation.”
“If there will be any agreement with Ireland from the point of view of the United Kingdom, one thing I can guarantee is if it will take back returning people from the Republic to the UK, we will have to take back a similar number of people. We need to recognise the political realities of this and the fact we have an open border on the island. We want an open border on the island but it is important for me as Minister to keep emphasising that free movement across that border is for the benefit of people who are entitled to use the common travel area.”
“If the Deputies are asking what measures we can put in place to ensure people are not coming across the Border who are not entitled to it, does Sinn Féin want hard infrastructure put up to stop people crossing the Border? I suspect it does not. We need to realise there are real challenges here for us because we have an open land border with a non-EU country. I want to ensure we have operations in place with the United Kingdom to make sure we have good co-operation between ourselves and the UK. I suspect what Deputy Carthy would like to see was that we have a returns agreement with the UK. That is something I will certainly engage on with the Home Secretary. It is dependent on getting the UK's agreement. The UK entered into an agreement with France and is clearly not happy with that agreement, which was referred to as one in and one out.”
“There are difficulties in policing the travel of people from both sides of the Border. That is unquestionably the case. However, it is not correct to say there is no lawful way of policing that. The Border management unit does work there. An Garda Síochána is engaged and if people are not citizens of the UK or Ireland, they are not entitled to cross the Border. I have to keep emphasising that. Simply because that is difficult to police does not mean we should change that law. It is an important provision that is in place. It is for the benefit of Irish citizens and UK citizens. I will briefly respond to the Sinn Féin point. At some stage, Sinn Féin will meet itself coming around the corner. We fought for years to have an open border on the island.”
“I would like there to be an agreement but as the Deputy will appreciate, I cannot mandate another country to enter into an agreement with us. That is just not something within my power or control. However, I will seek to ensure that the ongoing abuse of the common travel area does not continue and I think the Home Secretary shares my concerns in respect of that.”
“I indicated to her that there has to be joint operations between Ireland and the UK to ensure we do not have continuing breaches of the common travel area. That breach is putting a lot of pressure on our asylum system and on our international protection system. She is well aware of that. I also want to see that we can enter into arrangements with the UK where there is sharing of information. One of the negative consequences for the UK as a result of leaving the European Union is that it does not have access to the type of information that Ireland has, which is very useful in terms of processing applications for asylum. When it comes to entering an agreement with the UK, I will want to ensure that we have as close an arrangement as possible.”
“He knows as well as I do that it is not possible to force me, as Minister, to enter into an agreement with another country. It is dependent upon getting the agreement of that other country, as he will be aware. If they are not prepared to enter into an agreement, there is difficulty on our part. However, since the last time I spoke on these issues, I had a very good remote meeting with the Home Secretary. I have expressed to her the issues of concern from the point of view of what I say is the abuse of the common travel area. She was also very frank with me in terms of issues that are affecting the UK. Of course it is a Labour government in the UK that has introduced measures that would be criticised by certain sections in this House.”
“I need to emphasise again that individuals who are not citizens of Ireland or the UK are not entitled to avail of the common travel area and, therefore, irrespective of whether they come within or breach the definition of "absconding", they are not permitted to cross the Border. The common travel area is there for the benefit of citizens of the UK and Ireland and it is not for the benefit of others. Deputy Carthy raised the issue of a bilateral agreement. I note with interest that he has tabled an amendment we will deal with later providing that there should be a requirement on the Minister to enter into a bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom. I will be interested in having a debate with him when we come to that amendment.”
“I will briefly go back to the query raised by Deputy Gannon. I was probably too definitive in the response I gave to him in terms of the definition of "absconding". The definition states: "means the action by which an applicant does not remain available to the competent administrative or judicial authorities, such as by leaving the territory of the member state without permission from the competent authorities, for reasons which are not beyond the applicant’s control." The purpose of that provision is that the applicant remains available to the competent administrative or judicial authorities of the state. They are not allowed cross the Border, but if somebody did cross the Border, does that come within that definition? If they come back and make themselves available, that would not meet the definition of "absconding".”
“Deputy Tóbín mentioned earlier that we should have an exit system in Ireland. We cannot do that because we want to have an open border. If people travel from the Republic up to Northern Ireland, thereby leaving the State, there is no mechanism by which we can get a record of that. I suspect Sinn Féin does not want a mechanism in place that requires the State to stop people on the Border to identify their passing and coming. My assurance to Deputies is that when it comes to deportation orders that have been made, the belief is that the vast majority of them result in people leaving the jurisdiction.”
“That is not an issue in terms of what is in the legislation. The number of deportation orders that were signed last year was in the region of over 4,000. Regarding people leaving the country who have deportation orders, I believe and the Department believes that if somebody is served with a deportation order in Ireland, it is very difficult to remain. They do not get any social protection payments. They cannot work within the orthodox economy. The belief in the Department is that the very significant number of people who receive deportation orders leave the country. Similarly, however, the Deputy will be aware that last year there were in the region of 2,000 enforced repatriations of people with deportation orders and people who went for voluntary return schemes. There are challenges with having a open border in Ireland.”
“The purpose of it is to give an effect to a definition that is required under the reception conditions directive. There will be further amendments during the progress of the legislation through the Seanad in respect of the reception conditions but it is appropriate at this stage to have the definition of "absconding" within the legislation. Deputy Gannon asked whether it will apply if somebody travelled from the Republic to the North or back down. That is not covered by absconding.”
“Provisions in the Bill, in the directly applicable asylum and migration management regulation and in the asylum procedure regulation concern absconding. It is, therefore, necessary to clearly define what we mean by "absconding" for the purposes of the Bill.”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 16, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: " "absconding" means the action by which an applicant does not remain available to the competent administrative or judicial authorities of a Member State, such as by leaving the territory of the state without permission from the competent authorities, for reasons which are not beyond the applicant’s control;". This amendment is being introduced to provide clarity on the application of several sections of the Bill. It provides a definition of "absconding". The wording provides for the definition in the reception conditions directive. This directive is not directly applicable and, therefore, it is necessary to transpose its provisions into national law.”
“Once the legislation is enacted I will then identify when I am going to sign commencement orders under it. That always applies in respect of legislation. What needs to happen now is the Deputy needs to move amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 if we want to-----”
“I can, however, give confirmation to the Deputy that the country and the Department will be ready to process the new system proposed under this legislation If the Deputy wants to look at what is being done and the improvements have been made, he should look no further than the International Protection Office, which last year processed over 20,000 applications, which was an extraordinary achievement. We need to speed up the appeals process as well. The Deputy will be aware there is a new second instance body being established under this. I agree with Deputy Gannon that we need to put in some procedure for what we are dealing with here. It seems to be that we are talking about section 1. We have not moved amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, in that grouping.”
“I frequently get invitations, which I welcome, from the Deputy's justice committee. I turn up and I answer a series of questions on international protection accommodation, international protection processing times or the International Protection Office. I have done it before and I have no difficulty doing it again. What we cannot do is turn the Committee Stage of this important legislation into a procedure that is the same as happens in the justice committee when I appear to answer general questions.”
“Alternatively, if this is a general discussion or debate about section 1, I have said what I wanted to say in response to my colleagues, but we will have time today and next week to discuss this in these Houses to ensure we get it right.”
“However, the fact that there are time pressures on it does not mean we cannot have a thorough and detailed debate in respect of it. A total of 267 amendments have been put down for Committee Stage. I thank and commend colleagues, because the majority of them come from Opposition Deputies. I want to go through them and engage with them. That does not mean I have to support them, but I want to discuss and debate them. The sooner we start that process, the better. In fairness, the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputy Quaide, was not here at the start of the debate on this question. Deputy Carthy's first amendment was ruled out of order. His second, third and fourth amendments also concerned the issue of sovereignty. They should be moved and I will respond to them.”
“That brings me to the fact that we all know that within the European Union there has been an agreement among the member states that are participating in this that this process is going to commence on 12 June next. We can pretend that is not the case but it is the case. Ireland takes is obligations extremely seriously and we want to ensure that we are ready and that the legislation is in place by 12 June next because that is the commitment. That is the agreed date by which all members states that are participating in these regulations and directives have said they will be ready. If it is the case that we have to be ready by 12 June, obviously there are time pressures on the legislation. There is no point stating that there are not.”
“That is the sovereignty of the Irish people being exercised. The reason the majority voted for that in this House is that there is a recognition that if we want to reform migration in the 21st century, it has to be done on a broad, multinational basis. We have seen what has happened in the United Kingdom when they decided they wanted to go on their own in seeking to respond to the issues of migration that concern the United Kingdom. Migration is a really powerful phenomenon of the 21st century. When the history of the 21st century is written, migration will be, I would have thought, one of the dominant themes of it. If we want to respond to migration for asylum purposes, my belief and the belief of the majority of the former Dáil and, I believe, this Dáil is that we have to do it on an EU basis.”
“The elected members of the Irish people are in the elected Chamber, debating legislation and determining what laws we want to introduce into this country for the purpose of reforming asylum laws. That is sovereignty. As Deputy Carthy will be aware, the Irish people voted on a series of occasions, and they have put it into Article 29 of the Constitution, that we would also permit ourselves to be part of the European Union and to be bound by regulations or directives that were part of the Union as well. A decision was made, and a vote was held in an exercise of Irish sovereignty and Irish democracy, in the previous Dáil that said we were going to participate in the European Union regulations and directives that were seeking to reform migration within the European Union. We voted on that in this House. That is democracy.”
“We are going to have a very thorough consideration of amendments that have been put forward by colleagues on Committee Stage, which has been allotted eight hours today and which, as has been indicated, will go on to next Wednesday as well. No doubt there may be some disadvantages to Committee Stage of a Bill not being dealt with in the committee room, but there are also some advantages to it being dealt with on the floor of the Dáil. For instance, there are colleagues here who want to speak or can come in and address amendments. They have done so already and no doubt that will be done further throughout the day. I also have to be frank about something else. We can talk about the issue of sovereignty, and Deputy Carthy's first three amendments deal with the issue of sovereignty. This is Irish sovereignty in operation.”
“Everyone who is interested in this legislation knows that Committee Stage of this Bill was going to be a lengthy process if it went to the justice committee and the justice committee was required to deal with it in its orthodox way. The justice committee has a huge amount of work on its agenda. I know that because I send it a lot of the work. Frankly, the justice committee having to deal with Committee Stage of this legislation in the orthodox manner in which it deals with these processes would have taken an inordinate period of time. That is merely my assessment in respect of it. That is why a decision was made to have Committee Stage taken on the floor of the House.”
“At the outset, it is important to say the work of pre-legislative scrutiny on the general scheme of the Bill was done thoroughly by the justice committee. That having been done, the Bill that is before us now was published, having got a stamped copy from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. We had three days of Second Stage debate on that Bill in the House earlier this month. In fact, on the third day, frankly, we ran out of speakers, not only from the Opposition but also from the Government, so no one can dispute but that we had an absolutely thorough and extensive debate on the legislation on Second Stage. We have now come for Committee Stage.”
“I thank colleagues for their contributions. I recognise this is a very considerable piece of legislation. As some other colleague as indicated, it is the most important reform of Ireland's asylum laws in the State's history. The criticism is that it is being rushed. I will inform Members about the history of this legislation and how we have got to today and take on board some of the criticisms that have been made. In April 2025, I published the general scheme of the International Protection Bill. After that, I requested detailed pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme, which the justice committee, of which Deputy Carthy is Chair, did. It called in a lot of witnesses. The Bill was given careful consideration by the members of the justice committee and, as a result, they produced a report that contained a series of recommendations.”
“I move: That provision be made in the Act giving effect to this resolution for the charging, in accordance with the regulations made under section 146 of the Act, of the fee (if any) as may be prescribed by the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, in respect of an application, in such form and accompanied by such information as the Minister may specify, for a travel document by a person concerned.”
“I am very much aware of the investigation, suspension and prosecution of the gardaí referred to by Deputy O'Dea. The most important fact to emphasise is all those gardaí were acquitted. That is how the administration of justice operated. It obviously operated in an impartial and independent way. As to whether or not there are questions for Garda management, any time there is an acquittal there may be reflections on whether the prosecution should have been brought or not but that is a matter for Garda management. What we cannot say should become normal is that when there is an acquittal there necessarily has to be an investigation into a prosecution. It is an essential part of the administration of justice that cases are prosecuted. Many people are convicted but the gardaí the Deputy referred to were acquitted and found not guilty.”
“The Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I have examined family reunification. As the House knows, it was proposed that we would have a requirement for a three-year waiting period. Having listened to the opposition and to our colleagues in our parties, we will alter that to a two-year period. We are doing that on the basis of what has been said, but also on the basis of the European Court of Human Rights, which in the case of MA v. Denmark clearly recognised that a two-year waiting period is permissible. I will deal with the issue of legal counsel on Report Stage. It is a complicated issue. We have done our best to reform the system as best we can in the interests of fairness for everyone.”
“It has to be pointed out that when it comes to the very limited circumstances where a child can be detained under the provisions of the Bill, that can only happen where it is in the best interests of the minor and safeguards the unaccompanied minor. It is not the case that we are trying to introduce some sort of detention scheme for children. This only arises in the context of section 2$ in circumstances where it is in the best interests of the minor. Another issue raised was that of family reunification. Obviously, our asylum laws and this Bill are very much moulded by the numbers of people applying. As stated previous, the numbers prior to Covid were small. I cannot ignore the fact that approximately 60,000 people have come to Ireland to apply for international protection since 2022.”
“In effect, what we are seeking to do in the Bill is set out the rules that will apply in respect of individuals when they arrive in Ireland, how they will be processed, the legal requirement to ensure that their applications are determined in an expedited manner, how they will have the right to appeal and the rules that will apply in that regard. Rather than saying that it would not have entered into the pact, Sinn Féin needs to set out the rules it would like to see being applied, particularly as there is a huge amount of leeway available to Ireland when it comes to the application of our domestic laws. Deputy Gannon and others in his party referred to children. There was an emotive reference to the detention of children.”
“They said that if Sinn Féin had been in government and controlled the Oireachtas, we would not have entered into the pact. Nonetheless, they said that they are supportive of two aspects of the pact, namely asylum and migration management and Eurodac. I disagree with what they said, as does Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, but I wish to advise my colleagues in Sinn Féin that we have a huge amount of leeway and capacity to put in place the domestic laws that we want to see apply in respect of asylum in Ireland. I ask Sinn Féin to move away from the myopic discussion about the pact and tell me and the Oireachtas what rules it would like to see operate in Ireland for our asylum laws.”
“It is unquestionably the case that asylum is more complicated from the point of view of the State than other types of immigration. Deputy Nash referred to issues in his constituency. There are issues in every other constituency. Referring to them indicates that asylum gives rise to challenges for the State and the public that do not arise if people come here, have accommodation available to them and do not need to be processed because that has been done in advance as a result of them receiving work permits. I will not have an opportunity to respond to every Deputy. I will refer to some of the broader themes of the debate. Sinn Féin Deputies consistently referred to the fact that we should not have entered into the migration pact and that it is not respectful of Irish sovereignty.”
“I thank all of the Deputies who contributed to the debate on the three days over which it has been held. I recognise that every Deputy who contributed made a point of emphasising that they want to acknowledge the important role played by migrants in our communities. It is commendable that every speaker did that. It is apparent that there is a very good understanding in the Chamber of the different types of immigration into Ireland. We discussed issues relating to international protection and asylum, as it is referred to, but there are other types of immigration, whether through the free movement provisions relating to workers in the European Union or the granting of work permits and visas that facilitate people who want to come here to work.”
“5 is a consequential amendment which renumbers the existing subsection (3) of the proposed live broadcast defence. I recommend these amendments to the House.”
“Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 amend section 13 of the Bill, which introduces a defence for broadcasters where a defamatory statement is made during a live broadcast, where the broadcaster can demonstrate that it took reasonable and prudent steps to prevent the publication of such a statement. Amendment No. 4 addresses a concern raised in the Seanad as to whether the defence would apply in circumstances where there is a brief delay in transmission of the broadcast. It is not the intention that a short delay in transmission in itself would mean that a broadcaster could not rely on the defence. Amendment No. 4 therefore, provides that for the avoidance of doubt the defence shall not fail by reason only of the live programme concerned having been broadcast with a minimal delay. Amendment No.”
“The reason I am here advocating this is that politics, as Deputy Kelly well knows, is about compromise. Deputy Boyd Barrett said at the outset that there are disadvantages to being in a smaller party. That is true because you cannot cover everything. However, there are some great advantages to being in a small party, and there are some real advantages to being an Independent - you never have to compromise. They are the answers. I know the Deputies will not accept them but I thank them for supporting the amendments.”
“If we look through the law reports at present, we will not find High Court decisions on defamation actions in general. They are all, like criminal cases, determinations by a jury, so we just see the award of the jury report in a newspaper. Sometimes, we will see an assessment of a defamation case if it goes to appeal. From now on, however, we will see a body of law being developed, and written judgments by judges setting out why the plaintiff was entitled to €100,000, or whatever the sum is, for being defamed. It will develop a body of law which, in itself, I would have thought is a positive development, as opposed to the unpredictability. To come back to the Deputy’s point, the reason I have changed my mind-----”
“However, if there is judge-made law in respect of this area, we will see greater consistency and a greater ability to determine what is the likelihood of an award. It is the case, by the way, that in the Circuit Court people can get damages of up to €65,000 or €75,000 in a defamation case. A lot of people go for defamation cases in the Circuit Court, mainly because it is more predictable. There is uncertainty if someone goes before a jury of 12 because they do not really know what the outcome is going to be. A point that has been made is that there is certainly a very strong authority to a jury award, and they are very hard to overturn. What we are going to find now is that there will be a lot of recorded and reserved judgments in defamation actions.”
“If somebody defames Deputy Kelly, Deputy Boyd Barrett or Deputy Ward, and it is a bad defamation, and they go to a lawyer and ask what a court will award them, it is very difficult to advise them what will be awarded if they go before a High Court jury. It depends on what a jury will assess as being the appropriate value. I know that in the Higgins case, the Supreme Court set out what the values should be but from a jury's perspective, it is very hard to advise someone as to the potential liability. If somebody is being sued, it is hard to assess or tell them the potential pitfalls of the case. There are now to be judge-only determinations. I am aware there are negative consequences to that. There will be positive consequences but, of course, there will be negative consequences as well.”
“It is not the most significant change that I am going to be introducing as a Minister, to be frank with the Deputy. When we look at it, it is removing juries from the High Court in defamation actions. There is no right. I was listening to Deputy Boyd Barrett, who very carefully used his language. I was waiting for him to say it is a right, and in fairness, he did not - he said it is a principle. It is not a right to have a jury in a civil action. It is a principle that had developed but which has gradually been removed on the grounds of efficiency. There is a basis upon which the Government wants to remove juries from defamation actions. There is an understandable basis as to why that is happening. What it will mean in practice is that people will have a greater awareness as to the likely award in a defamation action.”
“The Labour Party put forward a candidate in the last Presidential election. Deputy Kelly did not agree with it. He did not run off and resign from the Labour Party. He expressed his opinion and made it known but he got on with it and rowed in. That is one of the consequences of being a member of a political party, and more so, being a member of a government. It was a Government decision that was made in the programme for Government that the Defamation (Amendment) Bill, which was commenced before I became a Minister, would be progressed and enacted. That is why.”
“I am going to tell him exactly that. I answered it here before. First, when you go into government, or if you are a member of a political party, as the Deputy knows, you sometimes have to go along with things you probably do not agree with.”
“It used to be the case, in the early 1980s, that when someone had a personal injury action in Ireland, they had an entitlement to a jury. We got rid of that on the grounds of efficiency and to speed up the process. Unquestionably, it is the case that one of the advantages or consequences of not having a jury in a case is that the trial will be expedited, and we get a solution much faster. Deputy Kelly wants to know why it is that I did-----”