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 46 of 84.
“This section is designed to protect responsible and fair publications that have made efforts to identify and get feedback from the person who is the subject matter of the article. If it is not fair, it will not get the protection. If the individual who is the subject matter of the article decides not to engage with that, it does not mean there is no cause of action against the publisher. Rather, it means the publisher is entitled to present these as factors that should give it a defence.”
“I think President Trump made allegations of drug use against Mr. Musk. Are we to say that a newspaper cannot publish details of that dispute without trying to verify whether the things said by President Trump about Mr. Musk were correct? That puts too much of a burden on a publisher. Senator Craughwell asked a number of specific questions about whether a person or victim can be named. They are all separate issues. When it comes to a court considering a publication and trying to determine whether the publication is defamatory and, in this context, whether a publisher is entitled to the defence under section 26 of the principal Act, the court will look at it in the round.”
“They do not then have to investigate by contacting me or my predecessor Deputy McEntee to try to identify which of us is telling the truth. It is in the public interest for them to say the dispute is ongoing and what it involves. Again, I provide assurance to Senator McDowell and other Senators that the purpose and benefit of having the word "fair" back in it is that a court will look at all the circumstances of the case like how this story was prepared, whether the person was given an opportunity to respond, whether the highlighting of this dispute in the newspaper was in the public interest and whether it was impartially and accurately reported. Disputes happen between people. There was a dispute between President Trump and the aforementioned Mr. Musk that went on for quite a period of time. Terrible things were said about each other.”
“The purpose of this is to try to deal with a situation where a publisher is reporting on a dispute between two parties. There is a dispute that has obviously got public recognition. It does not have to have gone to court, but there is a dispute. It could be a political dispute between two individuals, like two Cabinet Ministers having a row about what was agreed or about the carrying out of their functions. There is a dispute that will necessarily involve allegations or coverage that will be defamatory of one of the Ministers. In that instance, as it is on a matter of public interest, and we need to remember this, the section simply seeks to ensure that the publisher is entitled to report accurately and impartially the dispute ongoing between the two Ministers.”
“If a person do not respond it does not necessarily mean that he should be criticised for that, but it means the publisher is entitled to say at the hearing of the action that they wrote to him and asked him repeatedly, and he never even bothered to respond to them. If Senator McDowell were representing the publisher in court and I were giving evidence he would say to me that I received emails on three occasions asking me whether or not I was involved in this wrongdoing and that I never responded, and it was unreasonable of me not to respond. I think it would have been unreasonable for somebody in my position not to respond to something like that. I know it is moving on to another amendment, but Senator McDowell also raised the issue about subsection (3) of section 26.”
“They contacted him and he did not bother to get back to them, and never said a word to them. They contacted him again and gave him a week, ten days and two weeks and got no response. That is a factor the court is entitled to take into account in determining whether or not the publication was a fair publication on a matter of public interest. It is a public interest issue, so to a large extent we are talking about people such as us or people in the public sphere who are involved in issues which may give rise to a matter of public interest. I think we, and others, have a responsibility to respond.”
“With the greatest respect that is like the Homer Simpson defence, where in one of his shows he is accused of something and says, "Prove it." If there is a serious investigation into me and people believe they have information suggesting I have been engaged in wrongdoing, and a journalist sends me an email saying they have received information that I have done something, and sets out in detail what it is, and I decide to say I will not answer that, that is a decision I make. However, the fact that I do not answer it is something that a court is entitled to take into account if I subsequently issue defamation proceedings against the broadcaster or the publication. They may say they published this story about the Minister. They had information they got from credible sources.”
“It was introduced by Senator McDowell when he held my office may years ago. It was intended to provide protection for a responsible journalist or broadcaster who carefully investigated a matter, took steps to ensure it was true and then published it. The issue we are looking at here is the extent to which they tried to get a response or answer from the person about whom the story was being written as to whether or not the story is true. Senator McDowell said there is a lot to be said for somebody just saying nothing, but there is another side to this. I disagree with Senator McDowell when he states that we just need to look at it from the point of view that a person should be entitled to just state nothing.”
“We have also decided that a letter from a doctor to a consultant should be protected, but if the doctor writes something in it about the patient, which is defamatory and false, but not malicious, we still provide protection. I know everyone in this House understands this, but sometimes the public does not appreciate that the law of defamation does provide a number of defences for when a publication is made which is false. Similarly, section 26 is designed to provide protection, to be frank, in respect of responsible journalism, to publishers who have published something that has turned out to be false. I know instinctively the response of some people will be that if it is false you have to be liable for it and there should be no further steps. That is not how our common law has developed. That is not how section 26 was intended.”
“We are providing a defence to the retailer by stating this will be recognised as an interaction deserving of protection and, even though what was said is false, we are still going to provide protection to them. That is what qualified privilege is in general. There is a separate statutory defence for the retailer. If you look at the traditional qualified privilege, there is the letter from the former employer to the prospective employer of a person, where they set out something in a reference, without malice, that is false. Even though it is false, we have decided as an Oireachtas that it is still an occasion deserving of protection because we want to protect that communication between a former employer and a prospective new employer in respect of an employee.”
“There are a lot of protections within the defamation law in Ireland that provide protection. Obviously, for a publisher that publishes something that is true, we have the defence of truth. However, there are also many defences that operate to provide a defence when something is stated that is false. For instance, if I say something in this House that is completely defamatory of another person and is completely false, I still have a defence, because we have decided as an Oireachtas that we will defend publications in the Houses of the Oireachtas with the defence of absolute privilege. Similarly, we have decided in the legislation provision dealing with retail protection that if a shopkeeper stops somebody to say they have not paid for something or wants to know if they have paid, the implication there is that the person has stolen it.”
“9, there will be no need for me to agree to the amendment in section 10, which asks for that paragraph (d) to be included subsequently. I turn to amendment No. 11. Senators McDowell and Craughwell propose that I would insert after subsection (2) of the new section 26 the following: Failure or refusal by a plaintiff to respond to any attempt by the defendant to elicit a response to a statement proposed to be published by or with the involvement of the defendant shall not - (a) constitute or imply consent to the publication of the statement, or (b) entitle a court to draw any inference therefrom... As I said on the most recent occasion, the purpose of section 26 is to provide protection to a publisher in circumstances where the publication they made was false.”
“I am conscious that Senator Gallagher agreed to the recommittal of section 11 but it was on the basis that Senator McDowell had indicated he just wanted to raise questions and to get a response from me on them. I intend to do that but I hope it will not extend things too much. To be frank, I hope we can finish this today. That was the basis upon which I agreed to go along with it, or Senator Gallagher-----”
“In general, when a court is interpreting a provision like this it adopts a broad approach to what the intention was here and the inclusion of the word "fair" I propose in these amendments will convey to a court this defence cannot succeed unless there is a fairness in what was done. If something was done in an underhand or unfair way that damaged the interests of a plaintiff then in those circumstances, I do not think the court will permit a section 26 to apply.”
“I was concerned, having listened to Senators on the last occasion, that the removal of the word "fair" could convey a meaning to a court interpreting the matter that fairness was not really a central issue when it came to the defence of fair publication on a matter of public interest. There has to be fairness at the heart of it. That fairness has to be to the plaintiff as well as to the defendant and the amendments I am proposing will give that general, broad interpretation and the courts will apply an interpretation that recognises there has to be fairness in this publication.”
“to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the publication was fair in all the circumstances of the case— (a) the statement in respect of which the action was brought was on a matter of public interest, My experience of statutes being interpreted by the courts is the court will pay very close attention to what the general objective of the Oireachtas is as is evident from the words used in the statutory provision. That is the test set down by the Supreme Court in Heather Hill. The court will look at the words. The words are the best example when trying to decipher what the intention of the Oireachtas is. By including the words "fair publication" in section 26, in light of what Senators suggested, I think we will convey to a court interpreting that section the publication has to be fair in all the circumstances of the case.”
“I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. Obviously I listened very carefully to what Senators said on the last occasion. I am aware we are very much focused on certain legislative provisions within the amending Bill but if it is enacted by the Houses and promulgated by the President, there will be two parts of it that will stand out as being changes of significance, or maybe three. The first will be the Norwich Pharmacal provision being put on a statutory basis, which is a very significant development. Second, I have to concede that the removal of juries from High Court actions is a significant part. The third such part is the amendment of what is section 26 of the Defamation Act, which will be seen as a very significant change to the legislation.”
“What I say here is meaningless when it comes to judicial interpretation but the provision here is clearer the way it is as opposed to putting in what Senator McDowell suggests.”
“The publication by the retailer is a statement - of that there is no doubt - but it must consist of an inquiry as to whether the person whom the statement concerned had paid for the goods. It is unnecessary to put in another reference to the word "statement" and the provision, as provided for at present, is broad enough to cover what Senator McDowell refers to as "a statement" as opposed to a question. It would be a bizarre interpretation if a court were to turn around and say that the retailer only had the protection if they asked a question and that their statement had to be interrogative, otherwise it was not protected. That is clearly not the intention of the Oireachtas in putting forward this legislation.”
“The statement is presented and pleaded by the shopper as being defamatory and they will set out what the defamatory statement is, but whether the statement is "Have you paid for that?" or if it is the statement, as Senator McDowell says, "That has not been paid for", they are both clearly inquiries of the person in respect of whether the goods or services have been paid for and they clearly cover the circumstances where a retailer is entitled to challenge an individual by saying to him or her, "That has not been paid for", "Has it been paid for?", "I do not think you have paid for that". All of those clearly come within the definition of an inquiry as to whether the person whom the statement concerned had paid for the goods.”
“My own view is that there is no necessity to shoehorn in at the beginning of subparagraph (i) that extra reference to "a statement". Senator McDowell is adopting a very strict literal interpretation of the meaning of the word "inquiry". However, when a court comes to interpret this, it will know that there is a statement that was made by the shop owner.”
“If there was a restaurant, called "Mullen's Restaurant", in Galway and Senator Mullen was the front-of-house owner, obviously he personally would also have an action in defamation if it was the case that the defamatory statement had been made about the restaurant suggesting that either the food was rotten or there were financial irregularities in respect of the staff there. Just because there is a corporate entity involved does not mean that a personal litigant, who is a director and associated with that company, does not have a cause of action in defamation. I will now proceed to deal with Senator McDowell's amendment No. 5. This is a proposed amendment in respect of a very strong protection that will now be in the Defamation Bill, if enacted, for the benefit of retailers.”
“Damage to a for-profit company is determined by looking at its accounts to see if there was financial damage caused to the company. Obviously, in that case, one has to be able to link it, on the balance of probabilities, to the publication of the defamatory statement. That is a reasonable approach. Removal of paragraph (3) of what will be the new section 12 of defamation of a body corporate would be against the interests of justice. It is appropriate there is a requirement that if for-profit companies have to be able to show they sustained financial loss in order to succeed in a defamation action.”
“The part of the section Senator McDowell wishes to remove in this amendment is paragraph (3). It states: "Harm to the reputation of a body corporate that trades for profit shall not be considered to be serious harm ... unless it has cause ... serious financial loss.” That section distinguishes the charitable organisation Senator McDowell referred to, such as Trócaire, and the not-for-profit company, from the for-profit company. If you are a not-for-profit company or a charity such as Trócaire, as Senator McDowell referred to, you will not have to show financial loss. However, if you are a corporate, for-profit entity, you will have to establish that you suffered financial loss as a result of the defamatory statement. Otherwise, there is no damage done to you.”
“If that airline has not been affected by the defamatory statement, there is a logic then to stating we should not give the airline a cause of action because it has to be able to establish it was damaged by the statement. A person taking an action for defamation has to be able to show they were damaged by the defamatory statement. The way they do that is by calling evidence or, if it is obvious by the defamatory statement if somebody accuses another person of something extremely serious and it is associated with that individual person, of course, the court would then be able to determine that has had a damaging impact on them. In respect of a corporate entity and corporate plaintiff, it should be necessary to show serious harm was caused to them as a result of the defamatory statement.”
“I thought it would be inappropriate to do so and the process would simply prolong the defamation proceedings because we would have many interlocutory hearings after proceedings are issued, to determine whether or not serious harm had been done should the defamation case succeed. However, it is appropriate that when it comes to a corporate plaintiff, there should be a requirement that the corporate plaintiff would not be able to recover in defamation unless it can establish the defamatory statement caused serious harm to its reputation. Corporate entities are different from personal litigants. Let us say a person makes a false, damaging and defamatory statement about a very large, well-known airline, suggesting it is dangerous or unreliable.”
“I will start by saying to Senator Craughwell that just because I was and Senator McDowell is a lawyer, that does not give us any greater authority to speak on these matters or to play the role of legislator. With regard to the proposed amendment, it deals with the serious harm test that has been introduced for the corporate claimant in defamation proceedings. The Leas-Chathaoirleach may recall that in England and Wales there is a requirement, whether you are a corporate entity or a personal litigant, that you have to be able to establish serious harm in terms of bringing a defamation action. I did not go down that route in this country.”
“We can have discussions for a long time as to the merits or demerits of that. I have no doubt that people will be able to identify a list of merits and a list of demerits. However, I am absolutely satisfied - and I would not stand over this provision if this was not the case - that any litigant before the court, if this legislation is enacted, will still get access to the administration of justice on a fair, impartial and effective basis whether there is a jury or no jury.”
“In general, what happens is that the plaintive can opt to have the defamation case and the privacy case heard in front of a judge. That has happened on many occasions in the past. There have been judgments of the High Court finding in favour of a plaintive in defamation actions where there has been no jury and these have been fully respected. Nobody has sought to undermine them because there has not been a jury. What alternatively happens is that the defamation part is heard by the judge and the jury, and then the jury is discharged and the privacy action continues with the judge alone. It might seem unusual but it can operate relatively efficiently. Senator McDowell will be aware of the policy decision that was made in the programme for Government that we would remove juries from defamation actions.”
“That has very significant consequences for the individuals concerned, but that is the administration of justice. Whether it is a jury or a judge reaching that determination, there is a respect for decisions of the High Court when they are made by a High Court judge or by a jury. One of the other points made by Senator McDowell - and he was correct - was that we could now have the situation where an assault action will continue to be heard by a jury but a defamation action will now be heard without a jury. That situation happens at present quite significantly and quite frequently. The type of causes of action that are generally heard together with defamation are defamation and breach of privacy. A breach of privacy action, as Senator McDowell will know, does not give rise to an entitlement for the case to be heard by a jury.”
“Senator McDowell predicted that, in the future, there may be a lack of public acceptance about a defamation result. That may be correct. It may be that if somebody loses a defamation action in the future, they will say they are confident that if they had had a jury, they would have won. However, I still think there is very good respect and appreciation for the orders made by the High Court, whether it sits with or without a jury. We have seen some very significant decisions in recent times emanating from the High Court which have involved assessing the truthfulness of witnesses before the court. Judges hearing those cases can be very scathing and definitive in judgments in stating that they do not believe a particular witness or that they do not believe a litigant.”
“However, in paragraph (b), in fairness to Senators McDowell and Craughwell, it is said that the claim could be determined to be one to be heard by a jury because "the interests of justice would be served by the trial of the claim in defamation with a jury." Again, the court will be asked to determine whether it is in the interests of justice for a case to be heard with a jury. Every day of the week, judges down in the civil courts hear civil actions on their own, without a jury. These include negligence actions, breach of contract actions and, indeed, defamation actions in the Circuit Court. It is the case that the people and parties to those proceedings are having a fair trial. The administration of justice is working effectively for them.”
“However, similarly, the defendant may contend that it is not preferable from his or her point of view for there to be a jury hearing the case. I would be concerned that the language used in paragraph (a), when it uses the term "preferable", would be very difficult for a court to determine and apply. The court will ask itself what the Oireachtas means by stating it is preferable that a case should be tried with a jury. In many instances, that preference has to be based on the preference of one of the parties. It cannot just be whether it is preferable from the point of view of justice.”
“Senators McDowell and Craughwell are proposing that a party to a defamation action would be able to make an application to the President of the High Court that the President of the High Court, in accordance with subsection (2)(a), would be able to state and rule that it is preferable that the case should be tried with a jury because of the exceptional nature of the case or the identity of one or more of the parties in the case. I would be extremely concerned that the President of the High Court, when asked to interpret that, will be asked from whose point of view it is preferable. I could understand why a plaintive in a case may want a jury in a particular High Court action and, no doubt, from the point of view of that plaintive, it would be preferable.”
“I thank Senators McDowell and Craughwell for this amendment. It very much reflects one of the amendments that was put down by the Senators on Committee Stage in this House. The objective of it is to try, as Senator McDowell said, to soften the removal of juries from defamation claims by granting a jurisdiction to the High Court to permit a jury action in certain instances. Notwithstanding having listened very closely to Senator McDowell, I am concerned about the amendment and I cannot support it. I will explain why.”
“The calculator sets out a very mathematical and logical basis for people to calculate how much maintenance should be paid. It is based on the financial capacity of the parents and the amount of time they devote to the children. Other resources are also taken into account. It is a very useful tool. I urge all Senators to have a look at it.”
“Family law is the aspect of law that affects the majority of people in the country. Fortunately, most people do not end up before the courts. If, unfortunately, you find yourself in a family dispute and there are children involved, you probably do need to go before the courts. It is important that we, as legislators, ensure that the system for family law in place is fair, efficient and helpful to people who come before the family courts. Our sole objective should be trying to facilitate the individuals before the courts. It is not about lawyers or judges; it about the litigants. The calculator for the maintenance guidelines will be coming in shortly. I urge Senators to have a look at the maintenance guidelines that were published. A huge amount of work went into them.”
“Officials in the Department are liaising with other organisations and bodies to implement the other recommendations in the review, which I outlined and which, I know, Senator Costello wants to see implemented. As a large proportion of civil justice proceedings relate to family law, it is important that we have a consistent and transparent method of making child maintenance calculations in order that people will not have to go through the process of very complicated applications in court and will know that there is a procedure available for them to be objectively and fairly calculated.”
“The aim behind the published guidelines is to improve fairness, consistency and transparency and reduce conflict when parents are making child maintenance arrangements. The guidelines will be voluntary for parents and can also be used voluntarily by the courts. The courts will find them of great assistance. I will shortly launch the innovative new online child maintenance calculator, which will help parents to make private arrangements directly where possible and appropriate. In line with another recommendation in the review, my Department undertook a social media campaign in October 2025 to reinforce the importance of paying child maintenance orders. As a number of recommendations in the review will require legislative changes, work on examining those changes is taking place within my Department.”
“The objectives of the child maintenance guidelines include: establishing consistent, fair and predictable amounts of maintenance for children whose parents are not together; increasing transparency; reducing conflict and tension between parents since they will know what the appropriate payment should be; and reducing the number of child maintenance applications made to the courts in order to ensure consistent treatment of parents and children in similar circumstances. In April 2025, the child maintenance guidelines committee conducted a survey-based consultation to get the views of the public. I am pleased to inform the Cathaoirleach and Senator Costello that on Monday last, I published Ireland's first set of child maintenance guidelines along with the report relating to the public consultation.”
“Finally, it was recommended that there be a provision put in place for deductions from social welfare, the paying parent's bank accounts and Government grants and subsidies, and allowing for the recovery of arrears from tax refunds. An interdepartmental group was then established in February 2024. It was tasked with the responsibility of setting a series of child maintenance guidelines for use by all parties on a voluntary basis and with the development of an online calculator to help determine fair child maintenance payments.”
“The key recommendations required the development of a set of child maintenance guidelines, the introduction of mandatory mediation information sessions for child maintenance applications, the strengthening of attachment of earnings orders and exploring the possibility of attaching an order to a personal public services, PPS, number rather employing entities. Also, there was the proposal to introduce a single enforcement procedure when the receiving parent makes an enforcement application. This would allow the judge to choose the most appropriate enforcement option. It was also recommended that there be simplification of the bench warrant process and that the onus be placed on paying parents to pay costs associated with enforcement proceedings.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir Costello as an gceist a chur. Is ceist fíorthábhachtach í do na tuismitheoirí, go háirithe tuismitheoirí os comhair ár gcúirteanna. I thank Senator Costello for raising this important issue. The issues the Senator has identified clearly reflect the importance of child maintenance and of receiving child maintenance and the significance attached to being a parent. As she indicated, my Department carried out a review of enforcement of child maintenance orders. The review, which was completed two years ago, on 8 January 2024, made 26 recommendations.”
“I want to ensure that the services are funded, because the best way of ensuring we do not have drug-related intimidation is if we can get people off drugs and we get people to realise that drugs have a very negative impact on their lives.”
“I thank Deputy McGreehan for raising this issue. She is correct in stating that drug-related intimidation is a scourge on our society. As the instances of drug taking increase, there is regrettably more drug intimidation. The model behind drug dealing is generation of profits for drug dealers. As a society, we all need to recognise that and people need to understand when they start experimenting with drugs that the consequence of it is that they can expose themselves to this drug-related intimidation. An Garda Síochána is very aware of it and has responded to it in many instances. We saw some horrific arson attacks in recent times.”
“As a representative from Wicklow, Deputy Whitmore would probably have a good indication as well as to whether that can be provided.”
“I thank Deputy Whitmore for her question. Like her, I also had the pleasure of meeting the women from the Wexford Rape Crisis Centre when the Ceann Comhairle invited them to the Dáil a number of months ago. I will raise within the Department the fact that there is not a rape crisis centre in Wicklow. Obviously, the Department does not directly employ individuals and put rape crisis centres into counties. We are very much dependent upon the courage and diligence of volunteers who come forward and start it as a voluntary enterprise and then can gain access to State supports, but I will raise it in the Department. I certainly will look to see whether we can identify anyone who would be prepared to play that important role.”
“I thank Deputy Kenny for his question. I am not aware of the full details he has outlined. I am aware it is an issue that is being considered by Government. I am conscious that what the Deputy said happened did happen at the Committee of Public Accounts when there was an examination of the report. The report provides a detailed assessment of governance and control weaknesses within the IFI over the period 2019 to 2023. The Government believes that the C and AG findings are entirely unacceptable and it is appropriate that the IFI is subject to rigorous examination on these matters. I cannot answer the specific issue the Deputy raised about a driving licence in respect of an individual but I will raise it with my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Timmy Dooley, who has responsibility in this area.”
“I thank the Deputy. I am aware from my constituency, and throughout the country, the stress it can put on a parent of a child with special needs in terms of trying to get the child admitted into a school, whether primary or secondary. I understand the Minister of State, Deputy Moynihan, dealt with these issues last week. There were reasons deadlines were put in place. It was to give people some level of certainty. However, my understanding is that applications are now being dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I will raise the issue the Deputy has identified with the Minister of State, Deputy Moynihan.”
“We now have youth diversion programmes throughout the country. The gardaí play a huge role in them and are hugely supportive of them. We are never going to solve issues in terms of young people involved in crime by incarcerating them or just bringing them through the criminal justice system. We have to try to divert them as otherwise we are failing in our responsibility to them.”