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 60 of 84.
“What are the interests of justice that are going to determine that an individual has an entitlement to a jury? Is it somebody who is highly unpopular? Is it in the interests of justice that they do not have a jury but have a judge because they are so unpopular in the public realm, they are better off and it is in the interests of justice that their case is heard by a judge sitting alone? When we use the terms "public interest" and the "interests of justice", they have a meaning in certain statutory mechanisms for the purpose of a discretion being exercised by a judge, but that is when the judge knows what the statutory architecture is. There is no understanding here for a judge as to why it is in the public interest that a politician should get a jury.”
“Sometimes, it is believed it in the interests of party to defamation to have a jury. Other times, it is believed that it is the interests to have a judge sitting alone. I do not see how you can say that the interests of justice in a particular case merits having a jury. Rather than using an example of anyone else, I will use myself as an example. In the unusual circumstance that I were to be the person who Senator McDowell covers here, I was taking a defamation action, I was the Minister for justice and I decided I wanted a jury in this case because I was concerned that the judges would not give me a fair going, would that be a basis for me to get a jury because I was a politician and therefore it was in the interests of justice that I get a jury?”
“Let us take the example of a prominent politician who has been defamed. Sometimes I think politicians would be hesitant about going before a jury because, by nature, we are partisan. No matter how popular someone is as a politician, are they going to have 60% of people who are supportive of them? Probably not, let us be realistic about it. There sometimes can be a concern on the part of a politician about going before a jury. Similarly, however, politicians may not want to go in front of a judge because they represent a political viewpoint that may not be popular with the judge. All of these are not questions about where the interests of justice lies. They are tactical calls that Senator McDowell has made on many occasions when he has advised people in respect of defamation actions.”
“What would happen if this amendment were agreed, however, is that once the plea deals were closed and the notice of trial was issued, an interlocutory application would be brought before the High Court, predominantly by plaintiffs taking cases, stating this was a case where the High Court should direct there be a jury because it was both in the public interest and in the interests of justice to do so. Again I make reference to what I said was a weakness in the previous amendments. There is no statutory architecture set out here to inform a High Court judge as to what is the public interest and why the interests of justice merit the selection of a jury. Senator McDowell referred to a number of cases. In fact, I can probably give a better example of it, but I am going to try to avoid that.”
“The Senator's amendment proposes that the default position would be that there would not be a jury in a High Court defamation action. However, the High Court could order that the case should be heard with a jury if the High Court was of the view that both the public interest and the interests of justice would be better served by its trial with a jury. What is inevitability is going to happen if this amendment is agreed is that we will have another interlocutory hearing that will take place immediately on service of the notice of trial. At present, what happens is the plaintiff serves a notice of trial and states that it is going to be trialled by a judge and jury.”
“It is important that we emphasise this, and I am sure Senator McDowell will agree, that if a person's case is being heard by a judge sitting alone, they will still get justice. It is not the case that somebody who takes a defamation action that is heard by a judge sitting alone will not get justice. It is an option that is available at present and the Oireachtas is making a decision to remove that option. The logic and reason behind this is because there is a belief that jury actions take longer than an action with a judge and a jury. It is unquestionably the case that they do take longer. If they take longer, they are going to cost more. I wish to deal with an aspect of Senator McDowell's amendment. I express a concern as to how it would operate in practice.”
“It is that the Oireachtas is deciding there are certain types of actions in the civil law where a jury will play a role and there are others where they do not. It is for the Oireachtas to decide what they should be. Senator McDowell will agree with me that if we look at all the cases that are heard in the superior courts whether the case is heard by a judge sitting alone or by a judge and jury, a person is entitled to and will receive justice. There have been many historic cases that have been heard by judges sitting alone where there have been unpopular causes or issues which people may have perceived would not get a favourable outcome from a judge where they have received justice.”
“It is not illogical for the Oireachtas to decide that assault actions will be determined by a jury and judge but defamation actions will be determined by a judge sitting alone. We have determined that breach of contract claims should be determined by a judge sitting alone. Very many of the issues Senator McDowell mentioned, such as, perhaps, perceived bias on behalf of a judge, can be present now because of the cause of action that can be taken. There could be a highly unpopular individual who takes a breach of contract claim. He is going to have his claim determined by a judge. There is nothing more he can do about that because we do not permit breach of contract claims to be heard by a jury.”
“Senator McDowell says that is illogical. I do not think it is illogical but what it indicates is that the Oireachtas developed a determination - and prior to that it was developed through common law - that we would have juries in certain areas and we would not have juries in other areas. Prior to 1980 or a little bit later, there were juries for personal injuries actions. To use Senator McDowell's example, if the choirboy was the subject of the negligence of the bishop who crashed into him or did some other act as a result of negligence, there would be no entitlement for the choirboy to have a jury in his action because negligence was to be determined by a judge without a jury. Historically, personal injuries actions did have juries. We got away from them and removed them because we were seeking to introduce efficiency into the system.”
“If one considers, say, a breach of contract claim or a standard tort claim regarding nuisance or trespass - not trespass to the person but a trespass claim - none of them, historically, merited a jury. We have had many significant decisions of these superior courts that have not been determined by juries. I refer to some of the most important decisions we have seen in the country such as the McGee decision, the Ryan decision and the bizarre Norris decision. All of those decisions, which had a huge impact on Irish jurisprudence, were decisions that were delivered without a jury. The reason they were delivered without a jury was because, historically, as I have said, our legal system categorises certain offences in the civil action as having an entitlement to a jury, and the others as not having an entitlement.”
“I thank Senator McDowell for his interesting contribution. At the heart of it is his submission that the proposal within the Bill is illogical because we will have a situation where defamation actions will now not be heard by a jury, whereas other actions, such as assault, could be heard by a jury. It is important to emphasise at the outset that when you look at the civil law system that operates in Ireland, we have categorisation of causes of actions and thresholds within that legal system. For instance, if the Senator goes back to the judicatory Acts and looks at the Courts of Justice Acts, he will see that there were certain causes of actions that entitled a claimant to have a jury. The vast majority of civil actions, however, did not give any entitlement to a jury.”
“Again, there will be circumstances where the plaintiff may argue that it is in the interests of justice for it to be heard by a jury perhaps because the plaintiff is a controversial, well-known person, but that is not an adequate reason for a court to state it is in the interests of justice for a jury to determine this. Notwithstanding the effort made by Senator Stephenson in tabling the amendment, there is insufficient clarity within it to enable a court to determine what the interests of justice are that would designate that a jury should be allowed in a particular case. I have to oppose the amendment.”
“I will make a brief one. I suppose the point Senator Stephenson is making is a court could direct that a defamation action would be heard with a jury, if it were in the interests of justice to make such an order. Again, how is a court supposed to determine that one case should be heard by a jury in the interests of justice and the other should not? We would need to have a statutory scheme set out that would inform a court what are the interests of justice that would need to be taken into account. Otherwise, we would just be saying to a High Court judge whether he or she thinks it is in the interests of justice to hear a case with a jury.”
“Even though I listen to what people have to say, putting forward amendments will delay this quite significantly because I have to go back to Government, get approval and also it is more complicated than people think. I have had my say in respect of it. The Senators may wish to push it to a vote.”
“It is now the case in the High Court in civil proceedings that the only proceedings that really have a jury are defamation proceedings, assault proceedings, trespass to the person proceedings and, interestingly, malicious falsehood. Therefore, there will still be jury actions in the civil part of the High Court for those types of cases, but predominantly civil cases are determined in the High Court without a jury. I listened very carefully to what Senators had to say on the previous occasion. I was concerned that I may have been subject to filibustering on the previous occasion. That may or may not be the case but I am conscious I have to come back to the Seanad in the future. As things stand at present, I intend to proceed with the Bill as is, to be frank, as I am anxious to get the Bill through and enacted.”
“It always happens in the Circuit Court as you have no entitlement to a jury in a Circuit Court defamation action. The last time, some people referred to the right to trial by jury. This is not an example of where that right is being affected. The right to trial by jury as set out in the Constitution is the right to be tried on criminal charges before a jury, provided those criminal charges are not minor or charges that can be dealt with by a special court as provided for in the Constitution. A decision was made many years ago in the 19th century that defamation actions would be heard by a jury. It was the case that virtually all civil actions were heard by juries in the past. We removed the role of juries in civil actions because of the inconvenience of empanelling a jury to hear personal injury actions or other types of actions.”
“I think I had indicated everything I wanted to say. I am conscious that it was last July we were here, so just to remind people, the amendments we are talking about seek to change the situation in respect of the proposal to abolish juries. One of the points I mentioned the last time is that the law at present is that the plaintiff, the person taking the defamation action, can decide whether there is a jury in the High Court. If the plaintiff in the High Court wants a jury, they get a jury. If the defendant in the High Court does not want a jury, it does not have any impact because the decision is one exclusively to be made by the plaintiff. The alternative, of course, is that you just have a defamation action that is heard by a judge sitting alone. That has happened on many occasions in the past in the High Court.”
“I thank the Deputy for his question. It is opportune that he mentions this because this morning I had a meeting with American Chamber of Commerce Ireland where we discussed issues with the granting of work permits and subsequently visas. I agree it would be preferable if there was a single entry point where people could apply. When it comes to visas being issued by the Department of justice, it is a more complex process. Work and enquiries that need to be made in many instances take longer than the granting of the work permit by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I hear what the Deputy is saying. Digitalisation will happen and the process will become more efficient.”
“I also extend my condolences to the wider O'Connor family on the appalling tragedy that occurred. Obviously, an ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution has commenced. I can assure the Deputy that in an incident like this, a family liaison officer will be engaging with the close relatives of the O'Connors. It is a very difficult issue for An Garda Síochána and a traumatic event for the people of Louth. It is important that in the House we extend our condolences to all concerned.”
“I agree with the Deputy that it is a worrying trend to see a growth in the incidence of TB. We thought in Ireland that we had eradicated TB, which, of course, had such an extraordinary social and health impact on people in Ireland prior to the 1950s or 1960s. I hear what the Deputy says in respect of the increase in numbers and I will speak to the Minister for Health about it. Obviously, we need to ensure adequate funding is provided to respond to TB because if we allow it to spread, it will not only have catastrophic consequences for individuals but will also cost the State more money in the long run.”
“Deputy O’Dea deserves to be commended on the meeting that he and Deputy Cathal Crowe had with the then Minister, Mr. Donnelly, which resulted in there being a report. Obviously, Deputy O'Dea has read the report in detail. As I said previously, it is the case that the Minister only got the report last week and she published it yesterday. It is a detailed report. Notwithstanding the detail, Deputy O'Dea seems to believe there is a very succinct option that should be pursued. I have no doubt he will communicate that to the Minister. I will also send on to the Minister his views and, hopefully, a decision will be made promptly.”
“I will speak to the Minister, Deputy Burke, about it because I do not have the level of detail that is required to give Deputy Currie a full answer. I note the issue is about the trading online voucher and the Grow Digital voucher. I will ask him to come back to the Deputy with an update in respect of that. I am conscious that online trading capacity is essential for SMEs in Ireland.”
“In fairness to the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, my understanding is that she got the report last Thursday and it was published yesterday. It is a 1,200-page report. As the Deputy said, it sets out three options. I would have thought consideration needs to be given to the report before any decision is made in respect of the options. I am conscious that the Deputy has a particular view as to which option should be pursued. I will pass that on to the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill. Ultimately, it is a big decision that needs careful consideration. I have no doubt she will give it that consideration.”
“I am aware of that roundabout. I was unaware, however, that it was being replaced with traffic lights. I do not have strong views on the preference for roundabouts or traffic lights, or which are preferable, but I suspect there are engineers in the local authority who have views on it. There must be some reason that they are seeking to replace the roundabout with traffic lights. I will raise the issue the Deputy has mentioned with the Minister for Transport but I cannot guarantee that he is going to start sticking his nose into a row about whether we need a roundabout or traffic lights.”
“In fact, Deputy Ward raised this issue with me last week. I answered him by stating that it is on the priority list for publication. It is important legislation from the Government’s point of view. It is being worked upon. I am informed by the Chief Whip that it is not as simple as may be presented. I will certainly speak to the Minister, Deputy Browne, in respect of it. He appreciates the urgency of it. Since it is on the priority list for publication, I think it should be forthcoming promptly.”
“I thank the Deputy. I am sorry I do not have a specific answer for him. I do not have the detail on the incidence of turbines in east Galway as opposed to other parts of the country. I will speak to the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, in respect of it and will highlight the issue the Deputy has identified. We also need to recognise that we are trying to ensure that we have renewable energy in the country. If we are serious about renewable energy, we will have to see wind turbines not only on land but certainly offshore as well. I am conscious of the fact that very significant amounts of our energy is now fuelled by renewable energy, such as wind. I will speak to the Minister about the issues the Deputy has raised and hope he will come back to the Deputy.”
“The HSE has sanction to fill the post and is actively pursuing both temporary and permanent recruitment options, but I will raise with the Minister for Health the issues the Deputy highlighted here about Cavan-Monaghan orthodontic care.”
“I thank Deputy Smith. I agree it is essential that children get orthodontic care in a timely manner. There can be very upsetting consequences if they do not. I am aware the Minister for Health knows there currently are delays in accessing this service nationally, and the HSE has put in place a number of measures to address waiting times. There has been significant investment, as the Deputy will be aware, but I am conscious his concern is specifically focused on the orthodontic services in Cavan-Monaghan. I am informed that patients in Cavan-Monaghan are seen in the orthodontic clinic in Dundalk, which is currently experiencing staffing challenges. There is no orthodontist in post at present, as the Deputy well knows.”
“I thank Deputy Kerrane. Part of my function, in ensuring that we have adequate protection for women who are subject to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, is to ensure that there are adequate safe homes and refuges through the country. The Deputy will be aware of the progress of that by the Government. I will have a look in respect of Roscommon. I have to be careful. I do not want it to appear that there is an absolute necessity for a refuge in every county. It may be the case that there will be a refuge in every county, but it is important that we look to see where the services are needed and ensure that they are provided adequately close to the people. I am conscious that the women of Roscommon will want to see one close enough to their county, if not in it.”
“I thank Deputy Neville for raising that interesting point. It is clearly the case that there has been a decline in the number of companies listed in the number of companies listed on the Irish Stock Exchange since the end of the last century. The Deputy gave the statistics there. We cannot stop companies from making a decision that they no longer wish to be listed in Dublin if they have a preference to be listed on the larger stock exchanges, such as in London or New York. The Deputy raised a number of issues that could improvement the attractiveness of the Irish Stock Exchange. I will bring them to the attention of our colleague the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, who would have responsibility in this area, and I will see whether he would give any consideration to them.”
“I thank the Deputy for the question. The British Government announced just last week that it is considering the introduction of a UK digital ID card. In fairness to the British Government, it notified my Department in advance. We were aware just a day or so in advance of the announcement that was to be made. There is still a long way to go in respect of this scheme. Obviously, there has to be the production of White Papers, the preparation of legislation and a debate in the House of Commons. In my assessment, the introduction of a UK digital ID card is a long way off. The Deputy may be right in terms of it having an impact on Ireland. However, I cannot go out there and just establish an Irish Sea border. That ignores the reality of the fact that there are two jurisdictions on this island.”
“As I said to Deputy Catherine Connolly, I am extremely concerned about people going on hunger strike. It has a really detrimental impact on their health. I urge them to come off their hunger strike. I will speak to the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in respect of this matter. She met people before and I have no doubt that she will again. Her officials have engaged with them again. It is not, though, an appropriate way to try to get a meeting to put huge emotional pressure on a Minister by saying, "We are going on hunger strike". I urge the people to use more reasonable approaches to get the meeting they are seeking.”
“I thank the Deputy for her question. I cannot give her information in respect of the student contribution fees at present. However, an awful lot has been done in respect of facilitating students to gain access to third level and to get financial support. I know the threshold for SUSI grants has now increased to €115,000 per family. I note what the Deputy said about what is in the Social Democrats pre-budget submission. Obviously, issues in respect of the contribution fees will be considered in the context of the budget. I am not going to say, and nor do I know, whether there will be any announcement in the budget next week in respect of it. Certainly, though, significant measures have been put in place by the Government to try to facilitate persons at third level.”
“I am not fully aware if funds have not been released by Cuan. If it has the funds, I have no doubt it will release them. I will, obviously, engage with Cuan in respect of this matter.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising that matter. It is opportune that she has done so, because on Monday morning, I met with the chair and chief executive of Cuan. There was an event in the Department in respect of a launch by Cuan and I had an opportunity to meet with the chair and chief executive in advance. They informed me of issues in respect of the funding of Cuan itself and other issues in the sector too. Obviously, Cuan has been extremely well funded since it was set up by my predecessor last year. A lot of funding has gone into it. I obviously want to prioritise the continuance of the protection of women from domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, and I recognise that to do that these services and agencies in the community have to be funded. I will seek to continue to engage with Cuan in respect of this issue.”
“The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission and other statutory authorities under the provisions of the Department of Health also have a say in respect of that matter.”
“I thank the Deputy. I am concerned about the impending increase in private health insurance. It is obviously a big issue for people who are hit with these increases. In terms of what can be done with insurance companies, I will obviously speak to the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, in respect of the Department of Health and what can be done in respect of that in terms of her position as Minister for Health. I am also conscious that the Government has previously engaged with insurance companies and has informed them that we do not want to them to increase their premiums in circumstances where that is having a very negative impact on the consumer. I will engage with my colleagues in respect of the issue.”
“The planning regulator has a role to play in that. As the Taoiseach has stated, local authorities have a very significant role in ensuring adequate and sufficient land is rezoned so that people can build homes and live in the areas from where they came.”
“It gives a refund of income tax and DIRT paid in the State over the previous four years, subject to certain limits. I ask the Deputy to inform people who are concerned that they may not be able to purchase accommodation to consider the help to buy scheme. I also want the Deputy to be aware that 5,400 single one-off houses were approved for planning permission in 2024. I am conscious that the demands on the housing system are significant and severe, but the supply is increasing as time progresses. The Deputy also mentioned the planning regulator and planning permission. We need to ensure that local authorities are giving planning permission and zoning land. We want to ensure there is enough zoned land available so that houses can be built. We are in the middle of a time when we need to build housing accommodation as promptly as possible.”
“Part of the reason for that is that they enjoy the quality of life in Ireland. I am conscious that the Government has tried to introduce many measures to facilitate the young people the Deputy is talking about. He spoke about cost rental and affordable housing. Another great measure introduced by the Government is one he should tell his constituents about, namely the help to buy scheme. We know that scheme is specifically designed to encourage people who believe that a home may be out of their reach. It helps them to get through the extra required in order to ensure they can gain access to the property ladder. We know from the latest available data from 30 May 2025 that the help to buy scheme has supported more than 56,000 first-time buyer individuals or couples to buy their own homes.”
“I thank the Deputy for his question. I am conscious that many young people emigrate from Ireland and go to Australia. That happened many years ago as well as now. I am sure, as the Deputy said, many go to try to get accommodation. I would advise that when they get to Australia they will find there is a similar housing issue there. Accommodation costs and the price of housing in Australia are exceptionally high. The good news, however, is that people are returning. People may go to Australia from Ireland for a number of years to train in the work they do and for enjoyment. In general, a lot of them come back. We have seen that in the recent CSO statistics. Although many thousands leave Ireland each year, similar amounts return having spent a number of years away.”
“I will speak to the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in respect of the matters the Deputy has raised. It is unfair to say that the State does not face up to its financial responsibilities arising from terrible events that happened in the past. It clearly has done. I identified the Magdalen laundries scheme and other redress schemes that have been introduced. People have been provided for. I am conscious that the specific ask here relates to the pension and the HAA card. There are obviously consequences to decisions such as this. It will have an impact on other areas. I suspect the Deputy would join me in urging the individuals who are on hunger strike to come off it and to recognise that they can have engagement with the Government without the necessity of exposing their health to such danger. It is a very damaging experience for them.”
“Again, it is acknowledged that there have been calls for the State to provide this pension payment to survivors and that payments of this type are made to survivors of the Magdalen laundries. However, it should be noted that those payments reflect the very particular circumstances involved, where the women in the Magdalen laundries were engaged in commercial work as adults, in some cases for many years, without appropriate contributions.”
“It is important to note that the HAA card provided under the Health (Amendment) Act 1996 was introduced specifically to meet the very significant health needs of a particular group of individuals who contracted a serious and life-threatening condition. I believe it was individuals who had contracted hepatitis C as a result of the negligence of the State. The package of health supports to be provided under the supports for survivors Act is the same as that previously provided to survivors and former residents of the Magdalen laundry and mother and baby home institutions. The Act therefore provides that survivors of industrial schools and reformatories will be treated consistently in this regard. I am also aware that another of the concerns of the survivors is that they want a pension top-up payment.”
“However, I understand that officials from the Department of Education and Youth recently met directly with the group to listen to their concerns. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, also spoke to members of the group who were present during the passage of the Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Act 2025 in July. One of the points the Deputy made is that she wants the survivors to be provided with the HAA card they are demanding. I will point out that the supports for survivors Act enables the HSE to provide a package of ongoing health supports and services to survivors. This entitlement will be for life and will not be subject to means tests or periodic reviews. However, I acknowledge that some survivors have sought the provision of what they refer to as a "HAA card".”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as an gceist a chuir sí orm. Is ceist an-tábhachtach í. Bhí imní orm nuair a chonaic mé na daoine taobh amuigh den Dáil cúpla lá ó shin agus iad ar stailc ocrais. Beidh mé ag caint leis an Aire oideachais faoin gceist sin. I am also very concerned about what I have seen recently. This issue was raised with me last week by Deputy Michael Cahill. It is a matter of extreme concern that there are individuals who are making such dangerous efforts to make their point. It is a point they are making admirably but I urge them not to make it through hunger strike. Like the rest of us, the Deputy will be aware of the dangers such a strike poses to health. I ask those involved to try to engage. The Deputy made the point that there has not been engagement.”
“Child poverty is an extremely important issue from the point of view of the Government. I have no doubt that when Members see the budget that will be announced next week they will see recognition given to the importance of child poverty from the Government's point of view. In terms of a second tier of children's allowance, as the Deputy identified, I cannot give an assurance or confirmation as to what will be in the budget. I am sure the Deputy will have costed such measures and will appreciate that they will have significant consequences for expenditure elsewhere. I assure her that, as I identified before, the Ministers, Deputies Donohoe and Chambers, will give careful consideration to what is contained within the Social Democrats' pre-budget submission.”
“It is unfair of her to describe the budget introduced last year as "a giveaway on steroids". When the one-off measures were introduced, I do not recall anyone in opposition describing them as that. In fact, they were wholeheartedly accepted and there was no criticism of them by Opposition Members.”
“I have no doubt that, together with Deputy O'Callaghan, she has carefully crafted the expenditure to be spent on them. However, as the Taoiseach said yesterday, this comes down to a matter of choices. The choices that Deputy has identified may all be creditable and appropriate but they will have an impact on other types of expenditure. I can assure her that the Government will give consideration to the Social Democrats budget. I cannot give any assurance that we will adopt the policies put out in its budget. It is not the case, however, that simply because they are in the Social Democrats' budget, we will not give them consideration. The Ministers will, and the Deputy will be able to find out what is in the budget next week.”
“This type of spending should not have occurred. The Garda has accepted the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report and recognises it should not book rooms that far in advance and, if it does so, that it does not need to book them all. It also needs to ensure it has an appropriate cancellation policy in place to ensure the State and the Garda are not left in a position whereby they have to meet such a large bill for unused accommodation. I am very pleased that the Social Democrats will launch its prebudget submission late. I have no doubt that the Ministers, Deputies Donohoe and Chambers, will give careful consideration to it. I note what the Deputy said about some of the proposals the party is putting out there.”