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 6 of 84.
“I agree with everything the Deputy said about scramblers. We need greater enforcement, and I believe that is happening. The tragic death of Grace and the enactment of Grace's Law was a seminal moment that really changed the attitude of this House and the body politic to how we deal with scramblers. Already in 2026, over 1,000 scramblers and e-bikes have been seized by the Garda. That is considerably up on the figure for last year. I want to see that continue. I have spoken to the Commissioner. He has said to me, and emphasised publicly, that he wants to see a much more robust response from An Garda Síochána, and we are seeing that. Obviously gardaí need to use their discretion when it comes to whether to pursue a scrambler. The most preferable way of dealing with this is through technology.”
“I am sorry that I was not aware of that. I will certainly follow it up. I do not know why a community bus is needed for the Presidency. I do not see the Commissioners going around in a community bus. It is something I will look into. On the funding, the Deputy might agree it would be preferable if the community had its own bus as opposed to having to use the Garda bus. As he will know, applications can be made to the community safety fund. The Department or rural and community development also has funds available. We will look into the matter and I will raise the issue of the bus. If it is not available for the six months of the Presidency, I am disappointed to hear that. I hope an alternative mode of transport can be provided for that period.”
“The most important thing is that we have resources. I got a lot of good resources for An Garda Síochána under the national development plan. A huge amount of money is available. I want to see it spent. I want to see the fleet increase and we are seeing it increase. That will be of benefit to the people in the Deputy's area and throughout the country ensuring they can see gardaí in their communities. The most important thing the Deputy and I want to see is gardaí out in communities because it gives a great sense of confidence to people.”
“The Garda community bus will not be used for any Presidency activity so there will not be any impact on it. On what the Deputy said about the evening where there was only one car, that may have happened but the resources there now are significant. As I said, 125 vehicles are assigned to that division. The Deputy mentioned it is a large division. There are Deputies here representing Kerry and Donegal.”
“Some 75 have gone this year to DMR west and a further attestation is coming later in July. These gardaí are supported by other national specialist units and by the 63 Garda staff assigned to the division.”
“We have moved up fleet capacity for the purpose of the Presidency. It is not as though the fleet is being dispersed because of the Presidency. The scaling up has been the addition of 78 cars, 75 motorcycles and 12 mini-buses. With respect to vehicles assigned to the Deputy's region, 125 vehicles are currently assigned and available to DMR west. This allocation has increased in recent years, as only 101 vehicles were assigned to the division in 2021. At the end of May, there were 772 gardaí assigned to DMR west. Some 75 probationers have been assigned from the two attestations held this year. That is the most for any division in the country. If other Deputies were in that position, they would be very happy, because, as the Deputy will be aware, most of the time when people ask me about Garda probationers, they are looking for them.”
“Today is an important day for Ireland. It is the first day of the EU Presidency. It is an important function for Ireland. We want to do it well. As I am sure the Deputy will appreciate, it is a big security challenge for An Garda Síochána. Today, the President of Ukraine was here. A huge amount of security was required for his arrival. The Deputy will permit me to take the time to commend the Commissioner and An Garda Síochána on their work today. It is challenging when a figure with as high a profile as President Zelenskyy arrives. At present, the Garda fleet is the largest it has ever been. There are 3,680 vehicles distributed throughout Garda divisions and specialist units. However, in the months leading up to the Presidency, An Garda Síochána scaled up its overall fleet capacity.”
“I assume people who receive fixed charge notices for speeding are speeding, - hear me out on this - but it may be the case that they are given insufficient time for the change of speed limit from one area coming into another area. I will look at that. I cannot give the Deputy a categoric answer about the reason for this at present but being frank, looking at the data, it seems unusual that two cameras seem to have so many more fixed charge notices emanating from them than others. I do not think it is because people are safer drivers in one area than in another. I suspect the reason is the positioning of the camera, perhaps coming out of an area that permits a faster speed limit into an area that is perhaps very close, with a slower speed limit. That could be the reason for it.”
“It is hard for me to contest that the figures indicate there are aberrations in different parts of the country. When the figures were presented to me, I asked the Department why a greater number of fixed charge notices are being issued by two particular cameras and one list of cameras than by others. I do not have an answer for the Deputy at present but I have asked officials to inquire into it. Maybe there is a road people speed on consistently. I do not know the answer but I will look at it and I will ask officials to inquire into it because there is a significant deviation between the notices being issued by cameras in one area and those in other areas. I do not have an explanation for the Deputy but I heard what the Deputy said and I have already asked officials to look at it.”
“The strategy sets out a partnership approach to camera deployment and enforcement between An Garda Síochána, Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the National Transport Authority. This strategy seeks to define the optimal structures and partnerships across State agencies for delivering camera-based enforcement systems on Irish roads going forward, thereby reducing unsafe driver behaviour.”
“In 2024, 137,806 fixed charge notices were issued and in 2025, that went up to 168,882. In terms of analysing any divergences in fixed charge notices generated by particular cameras, I understand that the Garda analysis service supports all functions of the Garda national roads policing bureau. This includes providing the evidence base for roads policing operations, reviewing and analysing operations and providing ongoing support to external stakeholders in the area of road safety. Further action is being taken in respect of making better or more effective use of static speed cameras. The Minister of State, Deputy Canney, who is centrally involved in this, published Ireland's first national safety camera strategy in April this year. Officials in my Department were represented on the working group that developed the strategy.”
“I thank the Deputy for his question. There are fixed cameras, average speed cameras and GoSafe vans. That type of technology is vital in ensuring that we keep our roads safe. Road safety cameras are intended to be a tool to support safety, prevention and behaviour change across the road network. They are not about catching people out. They are about trying to ensure that we keep our roads safe. Nine static speed safety cameras have been in operation across the country since 2024. The locations of these cameras were selected based on fatal and serious injury collision data from the preceding seven years and speed data, as well as feedback from stakeholders. We have seen an increase in the total number of fixed charge notices issued for speeding in recent years.”
“I do not believe it is pointless designating the UK a safe third country. That is what it is. The Deputy is aware of the politics of the United Kingdom probably just as well as anyone else in this House. There are considerable issues of sensitivity in the UK around accepting returns from other countries. The Deputy knows that. It is an issue of political sensitivity. I have spoken to the Home Secretary. I invited her to the informal meeting of the ports alliance on 16 July. We spoke shortly after the riots in Belfast. The reason that was of particular interest to her was because the suspect in that case was somebody who had landed at Dublin Airport, coming from Luxembourg, claimed asylum in Dublin and then left Dublin the very same day for Belfast. The next day in Belfast, he claimed asylum there.”
“However, I cannot force the UK to recommence an agreement or to start accepting people back if it does not agree to do so. I have limited powers in what I can do. I can say I want to do it but I cannot force the Home Secretary or the British Government to enter into an agreement with us.”
“There were examples where UK driving licences were found. The passports were not UK passports. The great benefit of the legislation, which, of course, transposed the pact, is that it does make returns much easier - not to the UK because we do not have an agreement with the UK but to other countries in the EU. That is the big advantage of it. Under the Dublin III regulation, as the Deputy is aware, we would have to get the permission of, say, Germany to send somebody back if they had applied in Germany. Now we do not need its permission. It is already agreed that we will send people back to Germany and the airport in all the countries is designated. On the UK agreement, I have designated the UK a safe third country. I want to see operationalisation of an agreement between the UK and Ireland for returns.”
“As the Deputy knows, and I keep asking Sinn Féin to emphasise this, the common travel area is only for the benefit of the citizens of Ireland and the UK. We also discussed the issue of returns.”
“Notwithstanding the fact that the Deputy opposed it, it is improving the situation for us at present. On the situation with the UK, it was the case that 90% of applicants or more were coming in directly at the port and coming over the Border. That has reduced according to the figures over the past two and a half weeks but, again, it is very early stages. It is in the region of 78% of much smaller numbers. It is going in the right direction. I spoke to the Home Secretary on 15 June after that appalling attack in Belfast and the appalling racist riots afterwards. I emphasised three things. There needs to be greater data sharing between the UK and Ireland. The UK wants that. It wants to get data that we have access to in the EU. We said that we need to have more policing operations on the Border. That will happen.”
“I thank the Deputy. Since the previous occasion that the Deputy and I engaged across the House on these questions, the International Protection Act has commenced. It commenced on 12 June. These are very early stages. We are not even three weeks into it but the statistics I am seeing show that the number of asylum applicants coming to Ireland is down considerably. I do not want it to be understood that will inevitably continue, but that is the case in the very early days of the scheme. I believe the reason it is happening is because of the increased powers in the International Protection Act, including the ability to search the baggage and luggage of individuals who come here to find documentation. We have found a lot of documentation, such as UK driving licences and passports. It is a much more vigorous system.”
“I fully respect the opinion he has come to. Just because I disagree with him does not mean that I am right and he is wrong. I may be wrong but my view, and it is a strong view, is that the decriminalisation of drugs is going to increase the public use of drugs and, as a consequence, also increase the use of drugs generally.”
“I am not in the slightest challenging the Deputy's bona fides or genuine beliefs. I just have a concern that a policy advanced by people who are legitimately motivated by the best intentions may have a negative consequence. There is one thing we agree on, namely, that there is and should be a health-led approach. Under the Government at present, there is a health-led approach to drugs. The health referral scheme, which will be in operation shortly, will provide an opportunity for someone who has, by statute, committed an offence to engage with health services and, as a consequence, avoid a criminal sanction. In this way, we are taking clear health-led steps to tackle the misuse of drugs. I am concerned about the matter. I want to be frank with the Deputy and I do not want him to think I am sitting on the fence. I disagree with him.”
“If people can take those drugs openly without the Garda being able to say they cannot do that, it will have a very negative influence on people, especially children. If they see this happening, it is going to be normalised.”
“This is an interesting discussion. I am very happy to have a policy discussion with the Deputy. We obviously have different views. My concern is what happened in British Columbia. The Minister of Health there is a social democrat, a member of the New Democratic Party. British Columbia introduced decriminalisation about three years ago and is reversing out of it now because, it says, it has led to much public disorder and much public taking of drugs. I have great empathy for people who have addiction problems. Addiction is a huge challenge for anyone in life, but the Deputy and I also have to consider what the impact is going to be on other people, people who are not taking drugs, if you can openly take all drugs. It is not just cannabis the Deputy is talking about. We are talking about heroin and crack cocaine.”
“If, for example, somebody was taking heroin outside a school or smoking joints in a park or another public area, there would be nothing the Garda could do. At present, if that is happening, a person can be moved on. Gardaí can, because there is criminal activity, apprehend a person and seize the drugs because the activity is contrary to what is set out in the criminal law. If there were decriminalisation, I fear that what happened in Oregon and British Columbia would happen here. We would see an increase in public disorder and the public use of drugs. I just want to be conscious of the impact it would have on society more broadly, particularly children.”
“However, in fairness to him and to the media, the one issue everyone wants to address and ask me questions about concerns what he has described as the central recommendation, which is to decriminalise all drugs, full stop. I will give the Deputy my straight answer or my personal view, if he wants. Alternatively, I could say the Department will consider the matter. I have concerns about decriminalisation. The reason relates to what is set out in the report and it is also based on my own views. One of the findings in the committee’s report is that if there is decriminalisation of all drugs, it is likely there is going to be increased public use of drugs in public areas. I want to consider situations that might arise in my area or the Deputy’s.”
“I thank the Deputy for his question and, indeed, for his work chairing the drugs committee and the work on its report. I have had an opportunity to read the report. A very significant amount of work went into it. There are 161 recommendations in it. I agree with very many of them. There are parts in the report that are excellent, especially the section that refers to sports, well-being, combating addiction and trying to divert children through the use of sport. As we all know, sport is the most effective diversion project there is in trying to protect children. I want the Deputy to know I agree with a huge amount of what is in the report.”
“Once a serious case, whether it is a murder case or an assault case, goes to the Circuit Criminal Court, it is going to be subject to the fees that apply in the Circuit Criminal Court and Central Criminal Court, which are very generous and to which, today, I have added 8%. It is a fair scheme. As I said to the Deputy yesterday, my primary focus in doing this is to try to reduce the number of adjournments in the District Court so that we can have more efficient administration of justice in that court.”
“The basis upon which I referred to unethical practices is in the report that is now up on the website, gov.ie . In fairness to the Deputy, I do not believe he has seen it. It is in the criminal legal aid section of the website. I refer to the review of the criminal legal aid system in the District Court. The Deputy mentioned a whole series of cases, including custody cases. I have changed what was originally proposed as a result of my interaction with the Law Society. Any case that now moves forward to a higher court, whether it is the Circuit Criminal Court or the Central Criminal Court, will attract the full fee in the District Court as well.”
“I do not believe there is going to be an evacuation of people from the criminal legal aid scheme. It is still a very profitable scheme for solicitors. It is very well paid. Many people have put down parliamentary questions asking about the amount of money that is paid out. Of the 825 people, those at the top receive in the region of €950,000 per annum. At the bottom, the figure is small, namely a couple of hundred euro.”
“As I mentioned yesterday, I am not here to prioritise the interests of the legal profession and neither is the Deputy. My task is to focus on the administration of justice, people who are brought before the courts, people who are accused of criminal offences and the effective operation of the administration of justice in the criminal section of the District Court. That is my focus. If we look at the fees available, if we want to just leave this as a discussion exclusively about fees, last year, in 2025, the cost of the criminal legal aid scheme was €120 million. Of that, €40 million was attributed to the District Court. Obviously, the significant majority of that money, two-thirds, was attributable to the Central Criminal Court and to the Circuit Criminal Court.”
“Obviously, it is very early days and I do not want to say anything that is going to aggravate the situation. As of today, however, no solicitor has resigned from the panel. Three emails came into the Department from solicitors stating that they would be resigning. As the Deputy knows, however, in order to resign from the panel, solicitors have to contact the section of the Courts Service that deals with this area. I will be keeping a very close eye on this issue.”
“It applies across the board, including in the Circuit Criminal Court and in the Central Criminal Court. In respect of the €520 flat fee I have put in place for the District Court, as I explained yesterday, that has also had the 8% added to it, on top of the five appearances. I think the Deputy also wrote a letter inquiring about the report. I want him to know that the report has been published on the gov.ie website today in the section with criminal legal aid. The Deputy’s concern is, I think, whether this is going to lead to an exodus of criminal law practitioners from the legal aid panel. I do not believe it will. Approximately 825 solicitors are on the criminal legal aid panel. This number has gone up significantly since 2023, when there were only 672 solicitors. This means there is a significant number of solicitors there.”
“I thank the Deputy for his question. I also thank him for organising the meeting of his committee yesterday and for inviting me to it. I thought it was a very useful and effective meeting. It gave me an opportunity to put out the reasons I am introducing this new scheme in respect of the District Court. Obviously, it also gave other persons whom the committee invited, members of the legal profession, an opportunity to appear before it as well. In terms of what has happened since yesterday, the first thing I should emphasise is that the 8% increase in criminal legal aid fees, which has long been due and should have been restored a long time ago, has commenced as of today. As the Deputy knows, I said that would happen and it has happened as of today.”
“It is an important public law response to a appalling and tragic crime that takes place, and for which there needs to be a public law response.”
“There was a question about what would be done in the area of familicide and when tragic events like that happen. David was in the audience and said that this legislation had been a recommendation of the familicide report. He was the one who stated that it is, clearly, abusive of children for one guardian to kill the child's other guardian. The presenter turned and asked me whether I would bring in this legislation if I were to become Minister of justice, and I said I would. It was hard to do. Not everyone was fully supportive of it, but it is important legislation that we will have in place to provide a public law response in this regard. I commend David and his family on their campaigning on this matter. I thank Senators for their support. We will keep the legislation under review and see how it progresses.”
“I thank all the Senators for their contributions and support. It is unusual in this business of politics to go into any House and receive universal support for a piece of legislation. I thank all Senators for their support. As they know, I have made a couple of amendments and, therefore, the Bill must go back to the Dáil. That will happen on the week beginning 13 July. Hopefully, the legislation will pass all Stages of the Houses by 15 July. Obviously, it will then go the President to be signed. I commend David, Veronica and Suzette French on their presence here, particularly David for his campaigning in respect of this. The first time I encountered David French was on a television programme around January 2024. It was before the Government was announced.”
“Obviously, in advance of the commencement of the family District Court, this legislation will still be operative and operational in the District Court.”
“The purpose of these amendments is to set out which courts shall have responsibility for applications under this section. In particular, amendment No. 15 sets out under the new Family Courts Act, which District Court will have responsibility. It will be the family District Court and it applies to the other courts as well. It will apply to the Circuit Court, which is to be construed as a reference to the family Circuit Court and a judge of the District Court shall be a judge of the family District Court. Senators will be aware that the Family Courts Act was enacted in 2024. I published an implementation plan. When this legislation is up and running and the Family Courts Act has commenced, we want to see those courts deal with this.”
“The Government is committed to a high quality, consistent, child-centred service that strengthens the voice of the child in care proceedings.”
“Under this Bill, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a child in proceedings to restrict or remove the guardianship of a convicted guardian. The guardian ad litem is to be drawn from the new guardian ad litem national service. The amendment applies the rules of that service to the new proceedings and makes clear how they work in this context. It provides for when a guardian ad litem's appointment comes to an end and how a replacement is to be appointed. The aim is to ensure the child is independently represented throughout, that there is no gap in that representation if a replacement is needed and that there is full clarity on the role of the guardian ad litem . The Child Care (Amendment) Act 2022 reformed the guardian ad litem system and provides for the new service, which commenced about a week ago.”
“The first four amendments in this grouping are minor drafting corrections to correct the wording in four places so the Bill reads consistently. They do not make any change to the substance or effect of the Bill. The fifth amendment, amendment No. 12, is again a technical amendment. It is to ensure we apply the provisions of the Act of 1991 relating to the appointment of a guardian ad litem to proceedings heard under the new Part. The only substantive change is that the new drafting ensures a guardian ad litem can be re-appointed both where there is a review of an order as set out in the order itself, and where a review of the order takes place under the proposed new section 12E. A guardian ad litem is an independent person appointed by the court to put the views and best interests of a child before the court.”
“It is important to have it in the Bill because the last thing I want to happen is for this to be referred or for someone to challenge it. Let us be clear. People will challenge this because it is a significant measure to have guardianship rights removed or restricted, even if a person has been convicted of murder or manslaughter. People will fight this and we need to ensure it is rigorously constitutional. I believe this provision, which I want to retain, will ensure that.”
“However, if it is not in the Bill, I am advised the legislation will be constitutionally frail because people who are convicted guardians will argue this is all about adding on an additional penalty for them, that they have been convicted of murder or manslaughter, have been given their sentence and now an additional penalty is being put on them that they will automatically lose guardianship of their children. That is an argument they could make quite strongly if this provision, which says that Tusla must also be satisfied that the convicted guardian has failed in their duty towards the child, were not in the Bill. I remember David French said publicly that of course it is a failing of duty to the child to kill the child's other guardian or parent.”
“If we change it to three months, which is a short period for an application like this, what will happen is that Tusla will go in early and look for an extension of time and just extend and extend it. We do not want that to happen. We want Tusla to bring the application as it will have been given a decent period in which to do so. The second significant part of the amendment is that Senator McCormack proposes to remove the requirement on Tusla to believe the convicted guardian has failed in his or her duty towards the child concerned to such an extent that the safety or welfare of the child is likely to be prejudicially affected. As I said earlier, that is a statutory test that can be overcome fairly easily.”
“I thank the Senator. Senator McCormack's amendment proposes to do two things. One is to change the six-month period in the legislation to three months. That is not necessary because there is already a statutory provision in the Bill that requires an application to be made as soon as practicable. The Bill says "as soon as practicable but not later than 6 months after the conviction". Senator McCormack wants to reduce that to "not later than 3 months". My concern about changing it to three months is that it will take time to put the evidence together to go to the District Court. There will need to be reports and evidence on the voice of the child and how it is to be progressed.”
“The judge can hear applications from relatives to be joined as notice parties. The judge may say "I don't want to hear the notice parties; I'm going to go solely based on what is in the best interests of the child, as advocated to me by Tusla." Alternatively, and probably more likely, a judge will allow a relative to be joined. However, the last thing a judge wants is a representative of the murdered guardian on one side and the killer on the other side, with the kids stuck in the middle. That is why I think we need to leave this with public law, but I will certainly consider the matter in due course as the legislation goes on.”
“However, if we start putting in a statutory obligation on Tusla to provide reasons to every relative, there will be relatives of the convicted parent and relatives of the murdered parent and they do not always get on. There will be different views as to how the kids should be brought up, how the guardianship of the kids should operate and who should have guardianship for them. The kids have been through an awful trauma as it is. The last thing we want to do is put them in the middle of a family law dispute, which, in effect, is what would happen if we have competing relatives arguing in front of a judge about what they say is the best interest of the child. They should not have the primary role. It should be about public law, Tusla coming in and having an opportunity for the voice of the child to be heard by the judge.”
“There are sensitive reasons for not wanting to have a statutory obligation in place for that. Putting in a statutory obligation that Tusla has to provide reasons would be damaging to the legislation. Obviously if somebody brings an application and Tusla consistently says "No", they could seek a judicial review but they would want to be able to point out that there is an administrative or public law failing by Tusla in terms of not complying with the legislation. We need to get this legislation in place and see how it operates in its early days. I have no doubt there will be a necessity to come back in due course and we will be able to improve it.”
“I am sure if somebody writes to Tusla and says they would like it to bring an application in respect of a conviction which took place, either retrospectively or one which happens after the commencement of the Act, and asks for it to take an application, as they are entitled to, I would think that in most scenarios Tusla will write a reply and give an explanation. It may not be necessary for it to withhold information. However, there must unquestionably be times where Tusla, having considered what is in the best interests of the child, having received some information from a guardian ad litem in respect of the child or based on other factors which it has taken into account, might not do so. If there is a statutory obligation on it to provide reasons, it could be to provide reasons to the parents or siblings of the convicted guardian.”
“Yes, absolutely. There is a requirement on me, as the Senator knows, to do a post-enactment report a year after enactment, I think. The Department of justice does that. I will certainly take it into account. The provisions in this are retrospective as well. It may be the case that there are family members who will contact Tusla to say they would like it to bring an application, notwithstanding the fact that the conviction predates the commencement of the legislation. That will all be part of the review. That will be information that will be available for the purpose of the review. It will be reviewed and kept under constant review.”
“Let us see how the legislation progresses and let us not put responsibility on the families. The families have been through a lot already. Let us leave this as the State having a role to play and see how it progresses.”