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 79 of 84.
“Notwithstanding what anyone may think, it is empirically clear that the length of time it takes to determine a defamation action will be reduced if juries are removed. I do not think that can be disputed and it was not something I suggested on Second Stage. Time is expended in that way. Time in the civil courts means money and expense. It is inevitably true that the longer a case goes on, the more costly it will be. Deputy Sherlock mentioned earlier that defamation actions are the most expensive. That is not my understanding. If she looked at the fee notes from a commercial case, she would notice they are considerably higher. Even taking her point, it reveals that the longer a case goes on, the more it will cost. I would have thought that was the principal reason Government included this in the programme for Government.”
“As I indicated at the outset, and as a judge who presides over civil jury actions in the High Court noted recently, it takes time to put in place a jury. Individuals are selected. They are told to come to court at 10.30 a.m. There is then a process to select a jury, which invariably goes on until 1 p.m. Jurors can be challenged. At that stage, you have lost half a day. The jury is then empanelled and sworn in. There follows an opening speech to the jury. Counsel for the plaintiff gives an opening speech. The case then goes on in the orthodox way with witnesses giving testimony. At the end of the evidence from both sides, there are closing speeches to the jury. There is then the judge's charge to the jury. There is then the deliberation and determination of the jury.”
“If one takes a defamation case to the Circuit Court, there is no issue because one is not entitled to a jury in a Circuit Court defamation action. I ask rhetorically that if people genuinely believe juries are so necessary for the purpose of vindicating one's good name, why then is there no amendment that states there should be a jury in a Circuit Court hearing of a defamation action. The principal reason the programme for Government contains this provision, which requires that the defamation Bill be enacted as it stands, is the belief that the removal of juries will speed up trials. That is one of the reasons. It is probably hard to dispute that the removal of juries would speed up a trial.”
“Deputy Connolly and other Deputies are perfectly entitled to criticise me in light of what I have said previously. However, I must recognise, as Minister for Justice in a Government that has a programme for Government in place, that I am bound by the terms of the programme for Government. I will advance the basis on which that has been put into the programme for Government and the basis on which it is provided that the Government wishes to remove juries from defamation actions. There are very few civil actions remaining where juries determine the cases. The only civil actions remaining in the High Court where a jury determines the outcome are defamation, false imprisonment and trespass to the person, sometimes known as assault. Those are the only cases in which one has an entitlement to get a jury in a civil case in the High Court.”
“It was agreed in the programme for Government that there was to be enactment of the defamation Bill as it went through Second Stage. Deputy Connolly can say that lacks moral courage, but that is the difference between being an Independent and being a member of a political party. Whether or not juries remain in High Court defamation actions is not a question of morality. It may, however, be a question of morality when we consider what I said in the Oireachtas previously. Others will, no doubt, present it as me changing my mind. I do not agree with that. What can be seen here is a recognition of the compromise that is required if one becomes a Minister in a Government and if one signs up to a programme for Government that contains a principle that conflicts with what one said earlier.”
“Similarly, there are many great advantages to being a member of a political party but there are also disadvantages, as I am sure the other Deputies here will acknowledge. One of the consequences of membership of a political party is the need for compromise. There has been a general election since the Second Stage debate. Fianna Fáil put forward a manifesto, which I supported. It included a requirement that the defamation Bill that was going through the Houses of the Oireachtas be enacted. There was then a debate between different parties about the formation of Government. A programme for Government was agreed between the two parties. I am a Minister in that Government. I am bound, because of the principles of compromise and collective responsibility, to give effect to what was agreed in the programme for Government.”
“In many respects, Deputy Connolly and I are in different positions. There are great advantages to being an Independent Member of Dáil Éireann. There are also disadvantages.”
“If a jury is not going to assess damages, which is the position of the Labour Party, the Higgins case would not be relevant to a jury. That does become an argument on the general question of the retention of juries because, although juries will be advised about the findings and dicta in the Higgins decision, they are not as bound as a High Court judge is by the determination of the case. I regret to say I will have to oppose the amendment submitted by the Labour Party. There is a broader principle and objection put forward by the Social Democrats, the Labour Party, Sinn Féin and Deputy Connolly. The contention there is that the section itself should be opposed. Deputies Sherlock and Connolly have effectively referred to what I said on Second Stage. I will tell the House what has changed since the Second Stage debate.”
“The amendment seeks to state that juries would have a role in the determination of questions of fact that arise in the course of a defamation action but would have no role in respect of the assessment of damages. That is what is contained in the amendment tabled by the Labour Party. I will respond to that briefly. My assessment is that it would be inappropriate and would divide functions between a jury and a judge. There should be a link between who determines that a publication is defamatory and the entity that decides what should be the remedy for that through the award of damages. I oppose the amendment submitted in the name of Deputy Kelly. Deputy Sherlock mentioned that the Higgins case provided direction for a court in respect of the assessment of damages.”
“All those factors convinced a former Oireachtas in 1988 that for personal injury claims, we should get rid of juries. I do not think many people would suggest that was a wrong decision. Deputy Sherlock mentioned that the removal of juries had not resulted in a reduction in the cost of insurance premiums. However, we do not know what would have happened had juries remained in personal injury actions. I do not think it would have been feasible for juries to remain in personal injury actions for a lengthy period. There are two issues to which I am being asked to respond. The first is the amendment in the name of Deputy Kelly, which was spoken to by Deputy Sherlock. It seeks to do something different than what is sought by other Deputies.”
“It worked fine when there were three or four personal injury actions per day in the Round Hall of the Four Courts but it is no longer tenable. Many personal injury actions take place, not only in Dublin but around the country. To have juries hearing personal injury actions would require a considerable number of jurors to be available. It would also delay the determination of those cases. In practical terms, there is a difference between a civil action that has a jury and a civil action that does not. Time is spent swearing in the jury at the outset. That can take approximately two hours. Time is spent at the end of the case with closing speeches to the jury. Time is also spent on the deliberation of the jury before it reaches its verdict.”
“Second, however, there must also be similar respect for the right of journalism and the media or any publisher to publish information which is true or information which is protected not because it is true but because of the other many statutory defences that are set out in the Defamation Act. Before I deal with the two issues that have been raised in these amendments, I will speak in general about the role of juries in civil actions. Section 4 of the Bill includes a reference to the Courts of Justice Act 1924. After independence, it was generally the case that most civil actions were to be determined by juries. As has been mentioned by Deputy Sherlock, there was recognition in 1988 that it was simply no longer plausible to have juries determining personal injury actions.”
“However, as I have emphasised previously, we need to recognise that sometimes when it comes to the protection of one’s good name, the only remedy that people have is through the defamation legislation. We in this House are all aware of situations that arose when a prominent member of An Garda Síochána had scurrilous and calumnious allegations made against him. The only remedy that person had was through the defamation laws. It is sometimes forgotten in the debate about defamation that the reason the laws are there is for the purpose, first, to ensure that a person has a statutory mechanism to vindicate the right to their good name.”
“Separately, we must recognise and respect the right to freedom of expression which is also contained in the Constitution. That is similarly given effect not just in terms of the defamation legislation but also in other legislation. It is a difficult balancing act for any Oireachtas to try to achieve when there are two conflicting constitutional rights. My assessment during my membership of Dáil Éireann since 2016 is that there is probably greater advocacy on behalf of the right to freedom of expression than the right to the protection of one’s good name. That is probably because the former is more organised than the protection of the latter.”
“I thank colleagues for their contributions, to which I will respond to presently. This is the first opportunity I have had since I was appointed as Minister for Justice to speak on the Defamation (Amendment) Bill. I was not, as is apparent, Minister for Justice when the House debated Second Stage. It is important that I, as Minister, acknowledge the difficult role the Oireachtas is trying to perform when it comes to enacting defamation legislation. We are trying to balance two competing constitutional rights. On one hand, there is the right to one’s good name, which is expressed in the Constitution and which must be given statutory effect. That is the purpose of the Defamation Acts that have existed since the foundation of the State.”
“The reason they are being amended is that the law in respect of insolvency and insolvency practitioners has been changed in seven EU member states, although not Ireland. We want to ensure that the changes in the domestic law of those seven countries are reflected in the regulation so that we can continue with co-operation between member states in respect of insolvency matters. I look forward to hearing what other Members have to say.”
“Ireland exercised its right to opt in to that amending regulation, post adoption, in accordance with Article 4 of the protocol. As this regulation also relates to company insolvency, I can confirm that my colleague, the Minister for enterprise, tourism and employment, Deputy Peter Burke, has noted this technical amendment, and supports the opt-in. I commend this motion to the House. For the reasons I have outlined, I am requesting Members' approval to opt in to this proposed regulation. In conclusion, I should point out that, in effect, what is happening here is that a slight amendment is being made to the 2015 insolvency regulation. The amendment is minor. All that is happening is that two annexes to the regulation, Annexe A and Annexe B, are being amended.”
“The recast insolvency regulation is an important and well-established part of civil justice co-operation between EU member states. The recast regulation ensures a more coherent and predictable approach in cross-border insolvency cases and avoids unnecessary legal uncertainty and added litigation costs. The amending regulation is a useful updating measure to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the recast insolvency regulation across EU member states. As Deputies will appreciate, it is desirable for Ireland to apply the same, updated rules as other member states. Deputies may wish to note that the last amending regulation that made technical updates to the two annexes was adopted in December 2021 and in May 2022.”
“It is important to emphasise that the amending regulation does not make any alteration to the lists of Irish insolvency proceedings and Irish insolvency practitioners in the annexes that are to be recognised and enforced by other EU member states under the recast insolvency regulation. The efficient treatment of cross-border insolvencies of debtors with their centre of main interests in a member state requires that the scope of the regulation reflects the actual state of play of domestic insolvency laws. This proposal aims at ensuring that the scope of the regulation is adjusted to the actual legal framework of the member states on insolvency by the time of its application. I believe it is desirable that Ireland should opt in to this proposal for several reasons.”
“The changes made by the amending regulation, which I am proposing Ireland opts in to, replaces Annexes A and B to the 2015 regulation with updated versions. These updates are required to take account of new types of insolvency proceedings and insolvency practitioners arising from changes to national insolvency law in seven member states. In July 2022, Slovakia notified the European Commission on recent changes of its domestic insolvency law introducing a new preventive restructuring procedure as well as a new type of insolvency practitioner. This was followed by notifications from Estonia, Spain, Malta and Italy in September 2022, from Belgium in July 2023 and from Luxembourg in January 2024.”
“The proposal for an amending regulation to update and replace Annexes A and B of the recast regulation on insolvency proceedings with updated versions was presented to the Council by the European Commission on 14 February this year. Annexes A and B are decisive in defining the scope of application of the EU regulation. Specifically, Annexes A and B to the regulation set out definitive lists of the respective different types of insolvency proceedings, and the different types of insolvency practitioner, in each member state. Those proceedings and practitioners are to be recognised by other member states for the purposes of the recast regulation. It is, therefore, important that these annexes are regularly updated in order to reflect the actual legal situation in the member states.”
“This proposal for an amending regulation of the 2015 recast insolvency regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation on insolvency proceedings to replace its Annexes A and B makes some technical updates to the first two annexes in the 2015 insolvency regulation. It is important for me to stress the current proposal merely modifies these annexes to accurately reflect the content of national notifications and adapt the annexes containing the lists of national procedures or types of insolvency practitioners, respectively, in this field. These changes do not affect any of the obligations and rules set out in the regulation itself.”
“As Deputies may be aware, the recast insolvency regulation provides for mutual recognition and enforcement of insolvency proceedings between European Union member states in cases with a cross-border dimension, for example, where an insolvent company or individual has branches, assets or liabilities in more than one member state. The 2015 recast regulation also updates EU law to strengthen recognition of pre-insolvency procedures and debt restructuring. It sets out strengthened rules on insolvency proceedings which involve groups of companies based in different member states. It also clarifies and extends the rules on secondary proceedings, that is, where the main insolvency proceedings are before a court in one member state but the company or individual also has a base, with different assets or obligations, in a different member state.”
“This proposal for an amending regulation has its legal basis in Title V and so it is subject to the provisions of Protocol 21 attached to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is proposed that we now notify the European Council of our wish to take part in this proposal to make updates to Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings recast under Article 3 of the protocol and to opt in to the proposal within three months of its presentation by the Commission. The three-month period for this proposal is due to end on 1 May 2025. While Ireland has already opted in to the original recast insolvency regulation, under the protocol a fresh opt-in is required in respect of any measure amending it.”
“The opt-in we will discuss today is a concise but important one concerning the insolvency regulation from 2015, No. 848. On 15 April last, I received approval from the Government to arrange for Ireland to participate in the adoption and application of a proposal for an amending regulation of that insolvency regulation and to move this motion in the House today. Deputies will be aware that if Ireland wishes to take part in an EU measure with a legal basis that falls under Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Oireachtas is required to give its approval under Article 29.4 of the Constitution. The measure before the House is one relating to judicial co-operation in civil matters.”
“I move: That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings to replace its Annexes A and B, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 12th March, 2025. I very much welcome the opportunity to address the Dáil on this motion to exercise Ireland's option to opt in to an important EU measure under Protocol 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”
“It has a serious impact on individuals and on businesses and it is also damaging for the appearance and safety of the city centre if people think retail crime can happen without consequence.”
“I am conscious of trying to address it to assist retailers in giving them greater legal protections. I am conscious of trying to ensure An Garda has more resources. However, as the Senator also knows there is another aspect, which is the fact that many of the people involved in it, though not all, have addiction issues. That is an issue we need to figure out how to address. Nonetheless, that addiction issue should not interfere with the legitimate entitlement of people to run businesses and to serve the community as they do. I will meet members of the retail forum in May to get their views about what a retail crime strategy might contain. It would also be interesting to hear the Senator's views, and indeed those of anyone else. It is important to conclude by stating that this is not a victimless crime.”
“It is important to emphasise, as I always do, that one of the problems I face as Minister for Justice is that people want to see more gardaí in every community. It is a great advantage we have in Ireland. In some other countries, people do not want to see a police force in their communities because they do not trust it. The overwhelming majority of Irish people trust An Garda Síochána and want to see members in their communities. I should also have pointed out in my response that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment holds a retail forum on a quarterly basis with retailers and representative bodies. I also attended a meeting last October, as the Senator may have, of retailers concerned about the issue of retail theft. It is a serious issue. That is the reason I was there.”
“The approach is to disrupt the most prolific groups through the use of organised crime legislation and proceeds of crime legislation. In 2024, the first year of operation, there were 8,460 arrests and 20,000 charge summonses were recorded in association with Operation Táirge. That illustrates the work of An Garda Síochána on the ground. However, I recognise it is not only about organised retail crime. There is a large volume of lower level, everyday shoplifting that has just as serious an impact on small retailers and staff. Our best and most important resource to tackle it is An Garda Síochána. As the Senator will be aware, we are increasing Garda resources. I am pleased, and I hope the Senator has noticed, that we have an increased presence of gardaí in her area of Dublin 1 or Dublin city centre.”
“Under that operation, gardaí nationwide work on reducing organised retail crime by using an intelligence-led approach to identify criminals engaging in retail crime. The plan involves tackling organised retail crime by using an intelligence-led approach to identify criminals engaging in that crime; working with retailers to strengthen their security and prevent them becoming victims of this criminality; supporting those working in retail to report a crime; identifying and targeting the areas where organised retail crime black markets operate and their leadership; working with high-risk retailers to enhance prevention, investigating and prosecuting; and deterring people from becoming involved in organised retail crime by raising awareness of the consequences of committing such offences.”
“When that provision has been enacted, there will be much stronger protection for retailers when they identify and confront individuals they allege are shoplifting on their premises. It will, in effect, provide a protection of qualified privilege in circumstances where someone is stopped when leaving a shopping and it is said to them that it is believed they have shoplifted something from the shop. That will provide an occasion of protection for the retailer from a successful claim of defamation, unless it is the case the retailer was motivated by malice or acted disproportionately. Furthermore, An Garda Síochána is strongly focused on tackling retail crime, including through a dedicated operation already in place - I mentioned assistant commissioner Cleary - called Operation Táirge.”
“However, it is also important to recognise that powers are available that need to be availed of. One of the legislative changes I am considering is updating the public order Acts to allow a prolific offender of retail crime to be excluded from a premises for a period. We have similar barring orders for people who perpetrate or are alleged to have perpetrated acts of domestic violence. In circumstances where someone has been convicted of serial or repeated retail crime, there has to be a strong argument for that person to be kept away from retail areas. The Senator will also be aware that the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 will come back into the Houses of the Oireachtas, I hope, after Easter. It provides for a defence for retailers called the defence of retail defamation.”
“From speaking to Assistant Commissioner Cleary in Dublin, I know that he and his staff are very focused on this issue. They are aware that this is not a victimless crime and that something needs to be done to ensure there is enforcement of the law when it comes to shoplifting, which poses a significant threat to the economic welfare of Irish retailers. These incidents do real harm, not only to the business owners but also to their staff, who, as the Senator knows, are in vulnerable positions on many occasions, whether they are working late at night or during the day, if people come in who as well as stealing are threatening violence against them. My Department is developing a retail crime strategy. I am fully aware of the importance of having that strategy in place.”
“I thank the Senator for raising this important issue. I commend her on her tireless advocacy on behalf of citizens and people in Dublin Central. I am fully aware of the issue of retail crime, not just in the constituency of Dublin Central but in the cities and towns throughout Ireland. It is a significant issue for people who are trying to run businesses in those towns and cities. The statistics the Senator identified illustrate that. This is something that is costing small businesses €1.6 billion a year, which is a significant amount. I assure the Senator that the Government and I are resolute in supporting Garda operations to tackle retail crime, including through considering how we can enhance and perhaps supplement its efforts.”
“Each local community safety partnership will be supported by a full-time co-ordinator and a full-time administrator, resourced by the Department of Justice and will be led by a voluntary chair. Regulations are being made under section 114 of the Act to provide for the establishment and operation of the partnerships as soon as possible. They will be the appropriate forum for people to use to request the provision of CCTV cameras.”
“A key principle of the report by the Commission on the Future of Policing is that community safety requires multi-agency co-operation and that the agencies involved need to work in conjunction with An Garda Síochána. The report recommended the establishment of national and local structures to bring together Departments and State agencies involved in harm prevention in order to promote local community safety. That is why residents, local authority staff, councillors and members of An Garda Síochána will all be represented on these community safety partnerships. They will be best placed to know how CCTV can be appropriately utilised in their areas. The expertise really lies at a local level. Some 36 partnerships will be established under the legislation. These will be based in each local authority area.”
“I note the Senator's point about the CCTV footage from the Dublin riots. He is correct in stating that it was very helpful to An Garda Síochána in seeking to identify and prosecute individuals involved in the riots. I am aware of the confusion that can sometimes exist around the process for local authorities to apply. The Senator will be aware that I commenced the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 last week. Under this Act, provision is made for the establishment of local community safety partnerships. These partnerships will include elected councillors and individuals from a locality. I hope they will have a significant say when it comes recommending to local authorities that requests for CCTV schemes in various areas should be submitted.”
“This will set out the procedures and standards to be followed, as well as the new rules around confidentiality, security storage, access, protection of data and data subject rights. I am advised by Garda authorities that work is ongoing regarding the development of this code of practice. I urge An Garda Síochána to expedite this matter. I fully accept the usefulness and importance of CCTV cameras in an area. We all need to put more pressure on local authorities to try to advance this idea. I know they have concerns about being data processors or data holders, but that has not precluded Cork city or Dublin city from availing of these cameras to such a good extent. I urge local authorities in other places to do the same.”
“I appeal to and urge local authorities to seek to avail of those schemes. This level of funding underlines my commitment to working with communities to ensure that everyone feels safe. The Department is also committed to putting in place robust legislative measures to support community CCTV schemes. There must be a lawful basis for the installation and use of those cameras and schemes. That is why the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Act 2023, which was signed into law in December 2023, provides for a new regime for the authorisation and operation of CCTV schemes. In order to introduce the new regime for CCTV, Part 5 of the Act must be commenced. Under the Act, there is a new requirement for the Garda Commissioner to develop a code of practice in respect of CCTV.”
“Since 2017, my Department has administered a grant aid scheme supporting groups wishing to establish community-based CCTV systems in their areas. The CCTV grant scheme was extended in 2019 to not only cover new CCTV systems, but also to provide funding for the extension or upgrading of existing CCTV systems that were incomplete or obsolete. Applicants may also seek a one-off grant of up to €5,000 for minor maintenance costs. Grants of over €950,000 for 36 community CCTV schemes have been approved to date. I want Senator Kennelly and other Senators to be aware that a further €1 million in funding has been made available towards the development of community-based CCTV schemes in 2024. Applications for funding are now open and can be made directly by the relevant local authorities.”
“However, it should be noted that the provision of CCTV for the purposes of crime prevention and public safety are matters for local authorities and the Garda Commissioner. That is the situation under law. I, as the Minister for Justice, have no role in deciding on where CCTV cameras should be installed and I cannot direct local authorities to install CCTV in a given location. In many respects, dealing with the issue of what happened in Tarbert a while ago is a matter that Kerry County Council needs to engage with An Garda Síochána on so that they can put forward proposals and avail of the law that is there in order to install cameras. The Department of Justice plays a significant role in supporting local authorities in installing and maintaining community CCTV schemes.”
“I thank Senator Kennelly for raising this important matter. I am well aware of the usefulness and significance of CCTV footage from my time as Minister for Justice and, indeed, before. Last Friday, I was in Anglesea Street Garda station in Cork where I was given a presentation on the vast array of CCTV footage that is available to gardaí as a result of CCTV cameras placed in Cork city. I saw the same when I visited Store Street Garda station in Dublin. So, CCTV is hugely beneficial. It assists gardaí in the investigation of crime. I fully accept what the Senator said, that CCTV in towns and villages can contribute to feelings of safety. They provide a level of reassurance to citizens and individuals and can deter criminal activity simply through their presence.”
“We also need to look at solutions in terms of developing immediate spots and spaces for our Prison Service. That is ongoing. The Irish Prison Service is doing very good work in that regard but it is not a quick fix, I regret to say, in terms of resolving the overcrowding crisis.”
“I will clarify what I said in case there is any ambiguity. I said the Department had revoked the ministerial order put in place for the Thornton Hall site and that there were plans to develop a replacement order in the coming months. That is what I indicated to the Senator. In terms of Thornton Hall being used as a prison, it is unquestionably the case that we need further prison space. That is why the programme for Government commits to providing 1,500 new spaces. Part of that will have to be the construction of a new prison. Thornton Hall appears to be a viable option as a location for the construction of that new prison. These things, I hate to say, take considerable periods of time. We have an overcrowding crisis in our prisons. It was there last year, it was there when I arrived and it is there at present.”
“Nonetheless, Thornton Hall remains within the ownership of the Irish Prison Service and is very much part of the service's plans to increase capacity. Works on the site at Thornton Hall to provide accommodation for IP applicants are paused temporarily following recent legal proceedings. My Department revoked the ministerial order put in place for the site and plans to develop a replacement order over the coming months. The site remains secured and my Department hopes to recommence work there as soon as possible. I re-emphasise that Thornton Hall is an important part of my response and the Government's response to the overcrowding crisis.”
“In June 2024, on foot of a report from this group, range of actions were approved and work to implement these is ongoing. A working group was established in the second half of 2024 to further consider future prison capacity needs and make recommendations on the volume and types of prison capacity needed to 2035. The work of this group will support and inform future developments, including at Thornton Hall. As part of the comprehensive accommodation strategy for international protection, a portion of the land of Thornton Hall was identified for potential accommodation for IPA applicants. In 2024, the Irish Prison Service signed a two-year licence agreement with the Department of children for the use of approximately 30 acres of the site for the accommodation of persons seeking international protection.”
“I want to assure Senators that further spaces will be delivered in 2025 as part of an overall plan out to 2030. The Irish Prison Service has a total budget of €525 million for 2025, an increase of €79 million, or 18%, over 2024. Obviously, the issue to which Senator Keogan refers relates to the capital budget. The Prison Service capital budget stands at €53 million in 2025, an increase of €22.5 million on the original allocation for 2024. The reason the Government agreed to such a significant increase in the capital budget is because of the overcrowding in our prisons. In July 2023, a prison overcrowding response group was established, comprising officials from my Department and representatives of relevant agencies. The function of the group was to consider measures to address capacity issues in the prison estate.”
“I want Senator Keogan and the other Senators present to know that the Government will continue to invest in the prison estate to ensure that it is modern, fit for purpose and has the capacity to accommodate those committed to prison. In recent years, capacity across the prison estate has increased by more than 300 new spaces, with over 120 of these added in the past 12 months. There is more capacity to come on stream very soon. Since I became Minister for Justice, I have visited two prisons, Cloverhill Prison and Cork Prison. I visited the latter on Friday last. I am well aware from those visits of the excellent work done by prison officers in the Irish Prison Service. I am also aware, however, of the overcrowding problems in our prisons.”
“I thank Senator Keogan for raising this important matter. It is unquestionably the case that we have a problem in respect of prison overcrowding. It is also the case that we need to make additional space available in our prisons in order to deal with an increase in the prison population over the past number of years. A great deal of work has been done to date to enhance prison infrastructure, provide additional capacity and explore alternatives to prison for those who are non-violent or non-serious offenders. The programme for Government, published earlier this year, contains a commitment to continued action in the area and to the construction of a prison at Thornton Hall.”