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 74 of 84.
“Under the legislation I am bringing forward and that Government has approved, it will mean counselling notes will only ever be able to be used in trials if it is the case that to not use them would result in an unfair trial. I also wish to let the Deputy know about the issue in respect of the register for domestic violence. I had the privilege last week of meeting Jason Poole along with my colleagues Senator Fiona O'Loughlin and Deputy Paul McAuliffe. He has been to the forefront of trying to ensure there is some mechanism in place to make sure women, who are the victims of abusers, can find out information about men who have previously abused and been convicted of criminal offences in respect of other women. That work is ongoing in my Department. Deputy McDonald also mentioned refugee spaces.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising the Women's Aid report. At 11 o'clock this morning, I was down on Wood Quay and I launched that report. I commend Women's Aid on the excellent work it has done for 51 years in Ireland in identifying the unacceptable behaviour of abuse against women. The Deputy raised a number of issues, which Government is dealing with, and I will identify a few of them. She referred to the criminal justice system and how it needs to be adapted to ensure women can feel more confident about coming before the courts to ensure the criminal acts against them are dealt with appropriately by the courts. I have received approval from Government to bring forward an amendment to the sexual offences Act to ensure the issue of counselling notes will be dealt with properly once and for all.”
“I move: “That— (a) section 13 of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012 (No. 52 of 2012), which provides for the valuation date in respect of local property tax, section 17 of that Act, which provides for the amount of local property tax to be charged, and section 20 of that Act, which provides for the power of elected members of local authorities to vary basic rates of local property tax, and (b) the provisions contained in Chapter 5 of Part 33 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (No. 39 of 1997) which deal with outbound payments defensive measures, be amended in the manner and to the extent specified in the Act giving effect to this Resolution.””
“I think people are prepared to do that and the local community will be satisfied with the response they get from me and the Government.”
“Deputy Collins is correct in stating that yesterday I got approval from the Cabinet for the State to purchase Citywest for €148 million. The reason the Government approved that was because it was going to give effect to a saving of money from the point of view of the State. After four years, we will be making our money back in respect of it. We are spending far too much money renting private properties. As the Deputy knows, in the programme for Government, we have committed to buying or constructing State-owned accommodation where people will be able to live as opposed to us having to go out around communities, trying to rent places. There will be extensive engagement with the local community. I will speak to the local TDs. Obviously, it is an issue where there will have to be a lot of community engagement in respect of it.”
“I thank the Deputy for his question. Four weeks ago, I was in Limerick city and met the chamber and members of An Garda Síochána. It is true to say that requests were made for further Garda visibility on the ground. I brought that message back to the Garda Commissioner. There was also a request for a community van, which would be of assistance. I am trying to see, through the Department, whether that can be done. I will take on board what the Deputy said, discuss it further with the Garda Commissioner and try to ensure that the visible policing the Deputy wants is put in place.”
“I thank Deputy Murphy. As he will be aware, Tipperary County Council declared the site an exempted development last January. As a result and following on from that, a contract was entered into with the Department. I believe it was last Monday that the local authority effectively gave into the judicial review applications and, as a result, the section 5 declaration will be quashed. My understanding is it will be quashed because the screening carried out was deficient. Obviously, the Department would need to consider the consequences of that court decision and, more imminently, Tipperary County Council must figure out what happens now, because it is no longer an exempted development. I will assess it within the Department and we will be discussing it with Tipperary County Council. I will revert to the Deputy on it.”
“That is why when I engage with the Commissioner, I probe him. The Deputy has brought things to my attention, which I welcome. When he does that, I say I will raise them with the Commissioner and I do. The same will apply to other Members of this House. I have huge respect for this House. If a Member raises an issue of concern with me relating to the Garda, I will bring it to the attention of the Commissioner and seek an answer.”
“Prior to my appointment, I was always impressed with the rank and file members of An Garda Síochána and the excellent job they do. Since being appointed as Minister, I have met a lot of senior personnel in An Garda Síochána and I am extremely impressed with them as well in the work they do. The Deputy is perfectly entitled to highlight the issues of concern to him but as Minister for justice and the person who has political responsibility for An Garda Síochána, I have to look at the broader level of work done by the Garda on a daily basis, whether that is the rank and file members of the force out on the streets in the towns, villages and cities of this country or the great work they do in bringing people to justice before the courts. I cannot adopt a myopic approach trying to identify issues which might get some media attention.”
“A person is only entitled to take a claim for personal injuries if they have sustained an injury. First, there has to be an injury before somebody can bring a claim and then allege the injury was caused as a result of, in this instance let us say, the presence of asbestos. If people have sustained an injury, it will be diagnosed when they go to the doctor and complain about a specific illness. That diagnosis will be of assistance to an individual if they are told they are suffering from asbestos exposure. Most people will look around to see where they have been and what could have exposed them to asbestos. On a truth and reconciliation meeting with the Commissioner, I have quarterly meetings with him. I meet him regularly. I meet senior management in An Garda Síochána.”
“I am not trying to diminish my responsibility but I am conscious there are a lot of issues on my desk in respect of An Garda Síochána. The Deputy raised an issue from 2016. I will look at the report, but ensuring that the directive is transposed into Irish law is an obligation we have under European law. We would have to ensure that it is complied with. I will inquire what the level of safety in An Garda Síochána is, but I have not got direct complaints in respect of concerns that members of An Garda Síochána have from working in the stations. I have met the GRA on many occasions. In fact, I met a representative of the GRA last Monday. It is the case that this issue has not been brought to my attention, but I will look at the report. I thank the Deputy for bringing it to my attention.”
“The Deputy mentioned that the State Claims Agency indicated in a subsequent report from 2017 that if it was the case it would be difficult to defend any such claims. I cannot comment in respect of that, but it is certainly the case that if claims were put in and there was liability on the part of the State, I would then ask that the State, in line with the Attorney General's guidelines, would adopt a very principled approach to that. For any member of An Garda Síochána who sustained an injury, which was caused as a result of the known presence of asbestos in the building that exposed that Garda to danger, there would then have to be a liability on the part of the State for that. The Deputy also mentioned the asbestos directive.”
“It is certainly the case when it comes to older buildings throughout the country, I regret to say, that very many of them have asbestos. It was a material that was perceived as being acceptable many decades ago. This is not just an issue that is of concern to An Garda Síochána. It has a broader concern. I note what the Deputy said in respect of how we will be able to defend any claims. As of yet, I am not aware, and if the Deputy is he might bring it to my attention, of any claims that have been instituted by retired or current members of An Garda Síochána claiming that they sustained injuries as a result of the presence of asbestos in Garda stations. If that is the case, it would obviously be a serious matter from the point of view of both An Garda Síochána and the State.”
“Deputy Kelly raised the issue, which is his primary concern and is obviously also of concern to me, of the safety of people working within An Garda Síochána stations, whether they are attested members of An Garda Síochána or Garda staff. Everyone who is working is entitled to ensure that they are working in a safe work environment. I would be extremely concerned if it were the case that they were not working in a safe environment. I will go back and look at the report in respect of what the Deputy raised. Obviously, the concern is an individual within An Garda Síochána getting ill as a result of the presence of asbestos. Fortunately, that has not been brought to my attention as of yet and, hopefully, that is not the case.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I publicly apologise for the fact there was confusion last Wednesday. Deputy Kelly put down this issue for last Wednesday but I was not here through some confusion in the office. To answer the Deputy's question directly, I am not aware of the December 2016 report he referred to, which was commissioned by the OPW and the State Claims Agency, in respect of asbestos in Garda stations. However, I am fully aware that very many stations in this country need to be refurbished and upgraded. Last Monday, I was in Castlepollard Garda station with Deputy Troy to look at the station there. It is clearly a station that is archaic. It needs to be modernised. I am sure that is also the case in respect of other stations throughout the country.”
“I hope that the review of our bail laws and the actions to be taken thereafter will help prevent other families having to suffer in the way the O’Farrell family have suffered. I hope the O’Farrell family can take pride and comfort in the fact that Shane’s memory will live on through the scholarship at UCD. I will finish by saying something to the O’Farrell family that I know every Member of this House will agree with. It is because of the work and tireless campaigning of the O’Farrell family that the memory of Shane O’Farrell will not be forgotten.”
“Nothing I can do can realign that trajectory of a life stolen in its prime. We can, however, commemorate that life. I am honoured to announce that the Department of Justice will fund every year a scholarship in the name of Shane O’Farrell that will be awarded to a student who distinguishes him or herself in the masters in law degree at University College Dublin. The Shane O’Farrell award will confer on its recipients, in perpetuity, the honour of the excellence by which Shane lived his short but exemplary life. It is my sincere hope that what I have said today on behalf of the Department of Justice and on behalf of the Government of Ireland will provide some peace to the O’Farrell family.”
“This review of our bail laws and the further proposed change to our laws that I announce today are a reflection of how the criminal justice system did not protect Shane O’Farrell. Our laws will be changed to reflect his memory. In light of the failings in the criminal justice system that I have outlined in this speech, it is incumbent on me, as Minister for Justice, to apologise to Shane O’Farrell and the O’Farrell family for the fact that the criminal justice system did not protect him as it should have. I do so apologise. However, we should also remember Shane not just because of how he died but also because of how he lived and what his life may have been. Shane was a law graduate of UCD and TCD. He respected and obeyed the law. He was destined for a career in the law.”
“The option of the lesser offence is available with a jury acquittal of dangerous driving and it is a serious flaw in our law that the option is not available in the event of an acquittal direction from the judge. I am pleased to say that the Minister for Transport, Darragh O’Brien, has agreed to ensure that section 53(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 is amended in the next Road Traffic Bill he will be introducing in the Dáil this year. This will be the second change to our law achieved as a result of the tireless campaigning of Shane’s family. Section 17 of the Road Traffic Act 2014 was also introduced in memory of Shane and as a necessary correction of our law. It established a new indictable offence of leaving the scene of an accident where an injury or death has occurred.”
“It will not result in people having to invoke their in re Haughey rights and lawyering up in a process that would inevitably take years. More importantly, it will not need to establish any facts since the relevant facts are already known. This year, the Government will also be seeking the amendment of section 53(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 in order to take into account one of the consequences of the trial of Gridziuska. As we are aware, he was acquitted, by direction of the trial judge, of dangerous driving. The jury was not, however, permitted to proceed to consider the lesser charge of careless driving. It has been the law since 1962 that where a trial judge directs the acquittal of a person charged with dangerous driving, they cannot then be found guilty of the lesser offence of careless driving.”
“In order to answer these policy questions, I have asked Lorcan Staines SC to assess our bail laws and make any recommendations he believes are appropriate, taking into account the requirements of constitutional justice and the impossibility of refusing bail to every person accused of summary offences. I have required that this report be finalised and presented to me within four months of his engagement. I have asked that he identify any necessary changes that need to be made to our laws on bail and-or suspended sentences. This is not a report that needs to establish facts, since those facts are very readily apparent from the charges laid against Gridziuska in the year leading up to the death of Shane O'Farrell.”
“Gridziuska was also charged with having no tax on his car on 6 April 2011, but this was not prosecuted until 16 November 2011. It is clear that throughout this time Gridziuska was ignoring the many different bail conditions set by the various courts. It is clearly the case that many of the offences committed by Gridziuska while on bail were summary offences. The broader question that must be answered is how our criminal justice system should respond to a recidivist offender who persistently breaks summary laws and whether, even if the theft offences had been brought to the attention of Judge O'Hagan, the judge would have had the jurisdiction, through statutory power, to remand Gridziuska in custody.”
“The legitimate questions that the O'Farrell family have asked are why the persistent breaches of bail conditions by Gridziuska, through the commission of further offences, did not trigger a response under our criminal justice code; why consecutive sentences were not imposed in respect of the offences he committed while on bail; and why warrants that were issued were not executed. On 26 January 2011, on 11 May 2011 and on 25 July 2011, Gridziuska breached his bail conditions when he was convicted of road traffic offences. None of these was brought to the attention of Judge O'Hagan. More significantly, the five theft offences he was convicted of on 9 May 2011 were not brought to the attention of Judge O'Hagan. In fact, the court hearing those theft offences was not informed of Judge O'Hagan's direction.”
“We know that the 30 offences he committed before Shane's death were committed while he was on bail, and we know that he was on bail for at least six offences on 2 August 2011. At present, our criminal justice system requires, under section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, that a person who is convicted of an offence while on bail should face a sentence consecutive to the offence for which bail was granted. However, the commission of an offence while on bail is not itself an offence in the same way as failing to appear before a court in accordance with bail terms is an offence under section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. Nonetheless, it is a condition of every bail bond that an accused person does not commit any further offences while on bail.”
“Again, this conviction was not brought to the attention of Judge O'Hagan. It is also noteworthy that he received a conviction in Northern Ireland on 15 July 2011, and arrest warrants issued against him at that time were not executed. The O'Farrell family believe, and I agree with them, that had those convictions on 16 February, 23 February, 8 March, 9 May, 11 May, 8 June, 15 July and-or 25 July 2011 been brought to the attention of Judge O'Hagan, as he directed in his ruling of 11 January 2011, the likelihood is that Gridziuska would have had a custodial sentence imposed upon him on any of those dates. Had this occurred, Gridziuska may not have been at large on that fateful day on 2 August 2011 when Shane was killed while on his bike. Between 27 January 2010 and Shane's death, Gridziuska was convicted of 30 offences.”
“On 8 March 2011 he was convicted of another theft charge before Cavan Circuit Court. None of these convictions was brought back before Judge O'Hagan. In fact, he was also arraigned on that date for another single theft charge that had been sent forward on 17 December 2010 from Virginia District Court. The failure to notify Judge O'Hagan was again repeated when Gridziuska was convicted of five theft offences committed over five days, before Ardee District Court on 9 May 2011, resulting in a four-month suspended sentence. Once more, this conviction was not brought to the attention of Judge O'Hagan. On 11 May 2011, he was convicted of speeding, with no referral back to Judge O'Hagan. On 8 June 2011, he was again convicted of a single drugs offence before Carrickmacross District Court and was fined €500.”
“This is where the second failing of the State occurred, because between this date of 11 January 2011 and Shane's death, Gridziuska was charged with and-or committed 11 further offences, yet he was not returned to Judge O'Hagan. On 16 February 2011, Gridziuska was brought before Carrickmacross District Court on another drugs charge. He was convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment. Again, he appealed his conviction, lodged €1,000 in lieu of surety and was again released. On this occasion, his appeal papers were properly lodged. The failure of the State was that this conviction should have been brought to the attention of Judge O'Hagan, who had very clearly indicated that any further offences should be brought to his attention. On 23 February 2011, he was convicted of two counts of theft.”
“However,if he got into further trouble, he was to be brought back before the court and a custodial sentence would be imposed. It is worth reciting the exact words used by Judge John O'Hagan on that day. He said: If he does get into trouble again, it will come straight before me, anywhere on the Circuit, wherever I may be. You might even get a trip to Donegal, wherever it may be. Bring it in front of me and I will deal with Zigimantas Gridziuska. I am giving him this chance and this chance only. If he messes it up so be it. And I can assure you, Zigimantas Gridziuska, if you do mess this one up and you do get convicted, you will be going to prison; not you might; you will be going to prison.”
“It must also be recalled that, on the same day, 9 June 2010, Gridziuska also faced four other charges before Carrickmacross District Court. He was charged with theft and also charged with theft and receiving, and he was sent forward for trial on both charges to Monaghan Circuit Court. Between 9 June 2010 and 11 January 2011, Gridziuska committed ten further offences relating to road traffic offences, the possession of heroin and theft. Four of these cases came before his honour, Judge John O'Hagan, at Monaghan Circuit Criminal Court on 11 January 2011 and the Circuit Court judge directed that they be adjourned for one year until 11 January 2012. The judge said that if Gridziuska kept out of trouble and did not commit further offences, he would adopt a lenient approach.”
“The first failing by the State arose here because the appeal documentation was wrongly filed, with the result that the appeal was never processed within the District Court office in Monaghan. The appeal should have been recorded on the criminal cases tracking system that is operated by the Courts Service, but it was not. Had it been recorded, the appeal documentation would have been produced and the file would have been sent to the Circuit Court so that an appeal hearing could be arranged. The failure to record this appeal meant that there was never a determination as to whether his six-month sentence for the heroin offences should be activated. Instead, by simply lodging an appeal on the day of his conviction, Gridziuska avoided ever having to serve the sentence imposed.”
“We know that, on 27 January 2010, he was remanded on continuing bail in respect of four offences, having previously been granted bail for another offence on 28 August 2009. On 12 May 2010, Gridziuska was charged with two theft offences and was sent forward for trial on indictment to Monaghan Circuit Court. On 9 June 2010, Gridziuska was charged before Carrickmacross District Court with four offences of possession of heroin. He received a six-month concurrent sentence for two of these convictions and a three-month conviction for one other, with the final conviction being taken into consideration when imposing sentence. On the same day, 9 June 2010, he filed an appeal against these convictions and lodged €1,000 in lieu of surety. This resulted in him being released from custody on that day.”
“The driver was prosecuted in February 2013 for dangerous driving causing Shane’s death. He was acquitted of that charge by direction of the trial judge. Unfortunately, a lesser charge of careless driving was not open to the jury. Prior to Shane’s death, Zigimantas Gridziuska had repeated interactions with the criminal justice system, with his first conviction in Ireland occurring in March 2008. His repeated offending and the State’s response to his consistent breach of court orders and sentences merits repetition before the House. It is an illustration of the havoc and, as we know, tragedy that can derive from the actions of a recidivist offender who is not held to appropriate account by our criminal justice system. These are the facts that we know about his criminal behaviour in the 24 months prior to Shane’s death.”
“I do not need a report to force me into Dáil Éireann to give the apology to the O’Farrell family that I humbly give today. The purpose of inquiries is twofold: first, to establish facts; and second, to effect consequences that derive from those facts. We have many of the facts. I now want to proceed to the consequences. Primary responsibility for Shane’s death rests with Zigimantas Gridziuska, the Lithuanian man who, having been stopped by the Garda drugs squad an hour before Shane was killed, drove the car that struck Shane from behind. He failed to stop and remain at the scene. Subsequently that night, he hid his vehicle away from his home. When he returned to his home that night, he told his wife that he had knocked someone down, yet they both then went to bed. Neither of them called emergency services.”
“We could spend many years inquiring into these facts - facts that are already known - in the hope or expectation that a chairperson of such an inquiry would report them in a manner sympathetic and favourable to the facts as presented to me by the O’Farrell Family. I need neither more nor further entrenchment of those facts in order to face up to my responsibility as Minister for Justice and the State’s responsibility for failings in our system that exposed Shane to danger on that fateful day. It is part of the heavy burden that I carry as Minister for Justice that I must confront these failings in our criminal justice system. I do not need to wait for five years for an inquiry report to tell me about those failings. I know them already.”
“I know how much pain the O’Farrell family have gone through since they were informed that day of Shane’s death. There is nothing I nor the Irish Government can do to alleviate that pain. What I can do, however, is record how the justice system that operated at the time exposed Shane to a threat to which he should not have been exposed. For many years, the O’Farrell family have sought a public inquiry. In fact, this House voted on 14 June 2018 and 10 July 2024 for the establishment of such an inquiry. The Seanad voted for one on 13 February 2019. The purpose of an inquiry is not to administer justice but to reveal and report on facts that are of public importance. Many of the facts associated with Shane’s death have already been established, mainly through the indefatigable work of his loving mother Lucia.”
“I also want to welcome the family of Shane O'Farrell to the Distinguished Visitors' Gallery, his loving parents, Lucia and Jim, and his sisters, Gemma, Aimee, Pia and Hannah. When Shane O'Farrell left his home in Carrickmacross on the evening of 2 August 2011 to go on a cycle in preparation for a charity triathlon, he had his whole life ahead of him. At 23 years of age, Shane had secured a law degree from University College Dublin, had just completed his masters in law at Trinity College Dublin, and would no doubt have proceeded to commence a professional career that would have been as distinguished as his student career. That life was never lived because Shane was killed that evening. His loss was incalculable. His family’s was interminable.”
“We are going from €800 to €600. It is a sensible thing to do at this stage, but obviously I will listen carefully to the contributions of Senators.”
“While there are no definitive findings of any impact, I am mindful of the concerns expressed by Senators and Deputies, and I hope the reduction will go some way towards alleviating those concerns. We have a lot of data on the ARP which undertakes and provides an assessment on the impact in respect of housing. For example, a property that is RTB registered might also fall within the remit of the ARP, as a tenant may apply for ARP subject to the consent of the property owner and other tenants. There are also likely to be cases of RTB property registrations which were terminated for a range of reasons, such as sale of property or change of use, in respect of which an applicant is in receipt of the accommodation recognition payment. It is an important decision we have made to reduce the payment. It is not being reduced back to €400.”
“They acknowledged it as an innovative measure which has generated emergency accommodation out of largely unused housing stock. The scheme tapped into the generosity of the Irish people. As of 18 May 2025, more than 38,700 were being hosted under the scheme. This now exceeds the number in State procured accommodation, which is 24,100. Notwithstanding the success of the scheme, there must come a time when it is going to be reduced, and there will definitely come a time when the payment is going to be removed completely. A number of concerns were raised by Senators in this House in March regarding the potential impact of the scheme on the private rental market. That is part of the reason we are proposing to reduce the payment from €800 to €600. The reduction seeks to mitigate any unintended impact of the ARP on the private rental sector.”
“My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Foley, has already sought and received the consent of the Minister for Social Protection and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. She also consulted me in respect of it. The scheme was introduced in 2022 and was increased to €800 on 1 December 2022, recognising the challenge the State faced at the time in respect of ensuring we provided accommodation for Ukrainians. From the launch of the ARP scheme in July 2022 to date, 23,900 hosts have availed of the contribution in respect of 54,500 beneficiaries. In March this year, when the extension of the scheme was being considered in this House, many Members reflected on the many positive aspects of the scheme.”
“I thank the Members of the Seanad for meeting today to discuss this motion concerning the order I propose to make to reduce the monthly financial contribution for hosts of temporary protection beneficiaries from Ukraine under the accommodation recognition payment scheme. As Senators are aware, the Act I have identified requires us to look at the change and resolutions that are put before the Houses of Oireachtas. As Senators will also be aware, in March this year, the draft order under consideration proposing a reduction from €800 to €600 was announced. If this resolution is approved by this House and Dáil Éireann, it will have effect from 1 June. In practical terms, it will mean that the people who are receiving payments for hosting Ukrainians will have their payments reduced in July by the Department of Social Protection.”
“The purpose of the statutory scheme that facilitated increases or decreases in the payments was that it would enable the Houses of the Oireachtas to have a supervisory role and to have input in respect of the payment. This is what we are doing today. Members will be aware that, approximately a year after we introduced the €400 payment, the then Minister for children came back before the Houses of the Oireachtas and said that he wanted to increase the payment from €400 to €800. This was agreed to by the Dáil and the Seanad. What I am doing today and what has been mooted and indicated by Government previously is that we believe now we should reduce the payment, reducing it from €800, as I indicated previously, to €600.”
“The benefit and consequence of this was that people would only receive one payment per accommodation unit. Even if someone took in four beneficiaries of temporary protection - Ukrainians, as I will call them from now on - instead of one, the person would still only receive €400. It was not dependent on the number of people taken in. If the Government wanted to increase the payment, section 9 allowed us to do so through an order made by the relevant Minister, which at that time was the Minister for children. However, for an order for an increase or decrease in payment to be effective, we would have to pass resolutions in both Houses of the Oireachtas.”
“In order to try to overcome the difficulty of identifying accommodation, section 9 of the 2022 Act designated what would be provided as a payment known as an accommodation recognition payment. The purpose of this payment was to give recognition and some small financial contribution, recognising the charitable contribution of many Irish people who had provided Ukrainians with accommodation. Of course, this was not in any way a tenancy agreement. In many cases, it was people who had holiday homes who decided to provide those homes for the benefit of Ukrainian people who had fled the war. The specific terms within the legislation stated that the sum of €400 would be paid to the person who owned the property if he or she took in beneficiaries of temporary protection, namely, Ukrainians.”
“Regrettably, that war is still ongoing and, as a result, it is still necessary for us to provide Ukrainians who have fled Ukraine with the status of being a beneficiary of temporary protection. As the House knows - this may be of interest to our colleagues from the United Kingdom - since the war started in Ukraine, approximately 117,000 Ukrainians have come to Ireland. We did our best to provide them with shelter and accommodation. It was a difficult task considering the accommodation issues we faced in our country. I do not think there would be much disagreement from any part of this House that there was a very strong and generous response to the crisis by the Irish people and their elected representatives.”
“Fair enough. Like the Cathaoirleach, I welcome the distinguished guests from the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons. You are all very welcome to the Upper House of the Irish Parliament. The Cathaoirleach will be aware that the motion before the Seanad in effect seeks a resolution concerning the accommodation recognition payment. In short, I am asking the Seanad to approve a reduction in the payment of the accommodation recognition payment from €800 to €600. Senators will be aware that, in 2022, the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 was enacted. The first part dealt with the issues that had arisen as a result of the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia.”
“It will mean there is another option available for the Judiciary and greater options for the Probation Service and Parole Board. It will have a positive impact on the overcrowding issue within prisons, but as part of the solution. It is not the complete solution.”
“I thank Senator Gallagher. I will provide a detailed update in respect to where we are. I am advised that work is under way involving representatives from the various agencies to prepare to operationalise electronic monitoring. This includes the consideration of technology, data protection, procurement, implementation and operating model design. The project will determine in what order the various legislative provisions should be commenced, having regard to the practical and operational considerations involved with each potential cohort. The important information from the Senator's point of view is that an initial roll-out of electronic monitoring is expected later this year following a procurement exercise to select a service provider. That is good news.”
“We need to examine alternative options when it comes to sanctions. Prisons should be a place for dangerous people who have committed violent offences. I was in Shelton Abbey and there many individuals in the open prison who are doing extremely well. They are engaged in employment in the prison. They are living productive lives. There is also a sense of rehabilitation there. The function of prison is twofold. It is rehabilitation as well as punishment. We need to examine alternative penalties that can be imposed, such as community sanctions. In the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, I gave the opportunity and hope to be able to put into law an option for more community sanctions.”
“I have proposals to try to ensure we get 1,100 new prison spaces in the next 18 months. I will be bringing a memorandum to Government in the near future in respect of that. We need to provide prison spaces in a fairly immediate mechanism. That will require me to try to cut through the red tape and, I hope, avoiding having to go through the public sector spending code. We need to get prison spaces available in the immediate future. There is also the longer term plan in respect of building a new prison. That is something that will be necessary because of our rising population. However, I am not a person or Minister, and I do not believe we are a country, who thinks we are going to solve our criminal justice issues through the imposition of a greater number of prison sentences.”