Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 38.
“It is positioned in the very final section of the Bill, namely section 39, and is a modification of the application of section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. Again, the idea is that the Minister and the Commission, when performing their functions, will not be subject to the requirements of section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act and having regard to the likely consequences for the economy of the State and for international connectivity. Basically, the Minister is trying to modify and disapply the obligations that obtain under the climate Act. He literally has a section on the disapplication of regulations under the birds and habitats directives. We are setting up for a situation of environmental non-accountability.”
“Section 17 states that the Commission shall, in performing its functions, "take appropriate steps … insofar as such disturbance could be significant having regard to the objectives of the Habitats Directive". There is a bit of having regard to the Commission. Under section 19, the Minister may apply for an appropriate assessment or ask for a Natura impact statement to be done. At a fundamental level, the disapplication of the regulations – the EU rules which would apply, separate from whatever wooly measures the phrase "have regard to" covers in sections 17 and 19 - could not be seen as anything less than a dilution. This is part of another significant environmentally impactful component which we are going to come to later. Of course, the Bill is being guillotined. As a result, we may not get the opportunity to come to it later.”
“The Minister suggested that there would not be dilution of the environmental regulation, but there is. Section 18 is explicitly about the disapplication of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011. It states: A proposal or an order made under section 25(1) [that is a proposal or order made to adjust or increase the amount of the cap and change the numbers that are massing through the airport] shall not constitute an activity or a project within the meaning of Regulation 2 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations. The name of the section is literally "Disapplication of regulations". We have kind of wooly substitutions for that.”
“I think such a community engagement obligation would be appropriate. It is not ideal to have it at the discretion of the Minister. The prioritisations in terms of the economic case have been set out by the Minister, so I would not have as full confidence of these issues being addressed. It is regrettable that a number of amendments in relation to flight paths, particularly around assessment of noise, were not deemed eligible. Those are key issues and the kinds of key issues that could and should be identified through something like a community engagement piece, as well as those members of the community who have environmental concerns, which is something I will come to in subsequent amendments. Again, these are very serious concerns that will be likely to intensify significantly if plans move ahead as planned.”
“Again, this is a mistake and among a number of very poor decisions from the Government, this will go down as one of the historic mistakes.”
“We know that the LNG gas that is added to the system is actually a higher emitter and has a higher emission content than other gas that is currently in the system. This was emphasised in terms of the upstream impact in the 2026 electricity report from the Climate Change Advisory Council. Further investment in construction of fossil fuel infrastructure is going to destroy our ability to meet our targets and is an act of absolutely reckless abuse towards the rest of the world and those who are doing the work of trying to transition us to a liveable future. This is a security risk in the deepest sense because climate change is the greatest security risk we have. This is an accelerant on that risk and the damage will not only be felt by the population here in Ireland but by others right across the world.”
“The Climate Change Advisory Council has explicitly spoken about how the further expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure through an LNG terminal will commit Ireland to further fossil fuel lock-in, with serious concerns over the total emissions, including the upstream release of methane where LNG is sourced via fracking. A large amount of this LNG comes from fracking; a process that we outlawed in our own country because of its damaging impact. Moreover, much of that fracked gas is coming from the United States, which has left the Paris Agreement. The level of damage that is being done to other communities and collectively, globally, is not even being measured. What we do know, however, is that methane is an accelerant.”
“As for the idea this is going to be a six-month reserve, it will never be more than a two-month reserve because every two months it will need to be renewed. If we were to be in a situation of conflict it would become a target and the supply of LNG itself would become an area of vulnerability. We want to put almost €1 billion into this, a cost that will be carried by the public, although it does not stack up from an energy security or economic perspective. Crucially, not only does it not stack up but it is an act of recklessness in respect of our climate targets. It does not stack up in climate terms to such an extent that the Government is having to disapply the climate Act because it knows no credible consideration of the climate Act would back this.”
“Interestingly, there was no comparison in this cost-benefit analysis between the terminal a combination of renewables and batteries. It was decided to compare the costs solely with batteries or solely to renewables when clearly, the real alternative is a combination of renewables and batteries. That was not stacked against LNG in the cost analysis. The thing about the fluctuating price of LNG is that it is not a moment in time. We are going to be exposed to them constantly because LNG burns off. It is not a reserve. The Government is signing us up to the continued and sustained use of liquified natural gas, including fracked gas, because at least six times a year the reserve will need to be released into the system and replenished. That is the science of what is happening.”
“The Government has made it clear its plan is to encourage new data centres and new demand. If there really was a concern about security we would be looking for plans to, as was said, really intensify renewable energy and genuinely deliver on that and on storage rather than a measure that has so many negative side effects. I will address a couple of these effects in the context of security. On the economic side, the reliance on gas as a price setter has been shown to drive up bills in Ireland consistently. We have seen how the reliance on gas contributes to the escalation of energy bills and how gas is allowed set the price. The economic case for the terminal put forward by the Government was based on a low point in the highly fluctuating costs of LNG.”
“The Government has disregarded all of these recommendations. The committee looked for safeguards including ensuring it remains in State ownership and operation and is only used for emergency supply. None of these measures from our detailed scrutiny are properly reflected in the Bill before us. Experts pointed consistently to glaring holes in the Government's plan to bring LNG to Ireland. They pointed out the energy security and supply arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. They do not show us, for example, that it was necessary for our energy supply. CSO figures released today show data centres accounting for 23% of metered Irish electricity consumption, which is up 3% on just two years ago. Use by data centres has gone up by 10% while all other industrial and household users have risen by only 2%.”
“The committee called on the Government not to disapply the planning Acts and the climate targets and measures. It called for clarity on how decisions would be made and remarked on this process moving away from the Minister. The committee also said that there needed to be a definition of how consumption emissions were to be balanced to ensure that these would be offset by an associated reduction in the intake of gas through other mechanisms. There were concerns expressed in really clear language from the committee about the development or operation by a commercial operator and the need for it be explicitly limited to public bodies. The committee did not just say it should be State-led, but State-owned and operated with particular measures to ensure it would not be used as a precedent or as the opening of the door to commercial operators.”
“During pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill in the Joint Committee on Climate, Environment and Energy, of which I am a member, the report we produced highlighted and noted that there was a significant divergence between the departmental officials and other witnesses who spoke "to the major climate, legal, social, and governance risks in the proposed legislative approach." These witnesses said, "Recurring concerns centred on compatibility with climate law, legal soundness, planningsystem integrity, demandside management, commercial LNG risks, and impacts on local communities." That is just to give a small set of concerns. They also included security risks. All of this was highlighted by the committee in its report. This was alongside a number of recommendations that have not been taken on board and are not reflected in this legislation.”
“This legislation, which seeks to allow for the accelerated development of an LNG terminal by bypassing key planning and environmental processes, is a misguided, dangerous and reckless move by the Government that threatens to lock us into increased fossil fuel usage for years to come.”
“It is always and often used in terms of creating a dilution as to credibility creating questions of reasonable doubt and creating an ambiguity on the issue of consent or in its worse instances, in attempting to abuse the character of a person who is seeking justice. Those are the kinds of ways these things get used. Under the Minister's legislation, I am not confident that they will not be used in those ways in the future because the interest of justice is a very wide provision. That is why that as well as the amendment in relation to the prohibition, we also have an explicit amendment removing some of that language around "in the interest of justice" and confining these uses to the situations of an unfair trial, which of course, could be an unfair in either context.”
“It is not confined to being used solely by the complainant or the person on whom an assault is being prosecuted. It can be used in lots of contexts. Justice is exactly those things. Justice could be around creating an impression of consent and creating dilution. For example, there are incidents of persons who were abused as children have had the fact that they were abused as children used against them in the context of having experienced other assault. It was a case of people having been traumatised in the past and this was just them reiterating and replaying those traumas they had in the past. It is not confined to what did or did not happen at a particular time and particular date and some useful facts, which would never be fact, because they are hearsay that come through in counselling notes.”
“What the Minister has offered does not deliver for that. Our amendments are in respect of the prohibition, including, in amendment No. 27, a provision that "A counselling record shall not be disclosed in any criminal proceedings unless the complainant has consented to the disclosure". When we look at the issue of interest of justice, it is unclear. The Minister said that the interest of justice could be that this adds evidence for the prosecution. Let us talk about the person who has complained. If the Minister was accepting the amendments whereby it was done only where there is the consent of the complainant - and only in those circumstances and no other circumstances - then they would already have a recourse in relation to that matter. The interest of justice is very wide.”
“That is going to be part of the test. It is not like prosecutions that we get or do not get. It will be the fact of people who choose to engage or not engage with the system. If the only thing the Minister can offer them is that we will have a new filtering system before their counselling records are used and if that is all he is offering, I do not see the 71% of people who do not report going down to 50% or 40% or 10% or the fact that 100% or 80% or 90% of all those who wish to and should feel confident in going into our legal system and seeking justice. There is not any other area of offence where there are so few people who will report or engage. That is the challenge that was put. That is the challenge that is there in the interest of justice and for justice to be seen to be, understood to be and felt to be done in the State.”
“I am supporting the amendments that will look for a full prohibition but the compromise language was not even listened to or engaged with. We have a dilution of a compromise put forward by the Government. The chilling effect on the seeking of healing, justice and engagement with processes of legislative change, all of that, is a really heavy piece to come out of this process with. The Minister said he is confident that this is going to solve it but people are telling him that it will not. Where is the review clause? There is the statute, but what happens with the statistics? Is the Minister expecting that suddenly we are going to have 50% of people coming forward? There is that crisis, which is the Minister's responsibility to address, of the fact that the majority of people who experience sexual violence are not coming forward.”
“There is also the damage that is done when ordinary people who have experienced horrendous things come forward to the political system to share their testimony and genuinely seek that it be reflected in legislation but they are seen to be not listened to. One of the things that comes up in that whole world around the idea of the propensity of sexual violence and violence against women is this thing of "believe women". What has been asked of the Minister is to believe women who have experienced sexual violence, who have told him the laws he is proposing will have a negative impact on them, and who made that clear when they talked to the committee. That was why it was reflected in what the committee recommended. I refer to the compromise language around the presumptions of non-disclosure.”
“The Minister gave the example of somebody wanting to demonstrate that they had raised an issue previously, but that is where the issue of it being solely with the consent of the person comes in. On the idea that that piece of conversation may be used, I refer to the process itself. We have this filter. At a minimum you know that your counselling notes will be given to a stranger to discuss and examine whether they, on balance, think it is a good idea that they should be used. The very fact of this filtering process already breaches that sense of the privacy and intimacy and the important dynamic of the conversations that are had. There is also the problem of the damage that is done to people when they are made afraid to go to the Garda and the damage that is done to people when they are made afraid to seek counselling.”
“It can only add to that perception and experience when you see again the fact that, despite what the Minister has been told - the evidence and the testimonials - we are going to come out of this supposed process of potential reform with this situation regarding a person's most intimate and personal testimony. It is not even testimony but personal discussion. It is effectively hearsay. These are the notes, the discussions and the process of thinking things through that somebody does with a counsellor. Not only that; they are not even transcripts of that. They are the counsellors' interpretation of what they say. They are effectively hearsay on a very intimate and private conversation.”
“That is the common understanding of the public and that feeds down to the fact that so few people who experience these assaults come forward. The Minister has a real problem when there is a very large area of criminal activity where the public does not have confidence in how the legal system will treat it and where victims do not have confidence. Of course, because these are predominantly women, this is a gender issue as well because you are looking at a huge part of the population that feels that if violence is done to them in a sexual way, they are not confident in how they will be treated.”
“I referred to the 71% of victims who will not and do not report to the Garda. These are huge numbers. The vast majority - almost two thirds - will not and do not report violence they experience to the Garda in this area because of the system that is in place and because of the perception - this goes to the wider piece - of 76% of the public. It is not just survivors who feel that, as 76% or over three quarters of the general population believe that victims of sexual violence are going to get a hard time in a trial. There is a problem in that the wide, general perception is that victims of sexual violence get a hard time in our trial system. A big part of that is the fact that the victims feel that they are going to be put on trial and dragged through the coals.”
“I mentioned it on Committee Stage and I will mention it again because I think it is a fundamental issue here. The approach that the Government is taking here and that the Minister has chosen to take, despite the testimony he has heard from survivors, is not in the interests of justice in itself. When we talk about "in the interests of justice" - the phrase can and, I fear, will be abused as it is used in the Minister's legislative proposals - the crisis of justice we face and the Minister faces and presides over is a crisis of confidence in the justice system for a very good reason because of the experience of people. There is a crisis of confidence not just among those who have experienced violent or sexual assault or abuse, but also across the entire country among the public. We have heard the statistics.”
“I move amendment No. 22: In page 19, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall, in consultation with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, develop and publish guidelines for directions to deploy members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power under subsection (1).”.”
“I move amendment No. 21: In page 19, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall publish a list of the class or classes of assistance for which deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power may be approved under subsection (2). (4) Where the Minister wishes to introduce a novel class of assistance, he or she shall update the list published under subsection (3).”.”
“I move amendment No. 20: In page 19, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall publish, on an annual basis, the class or classes of assistance as agreed with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, for which deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power has been approved.”.”
“I move amendment No. 19: In page 19, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: "(3) When requested by a committee appointed by either House of the Oireachtas or jointly by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Minister shall publish information in relation to the conditions attached to the approval of decisions under subsection (2).”
“My three amendments straightforwardly looked for elements that are already going to happen under the new system, as the Minister has described it, to be published and to be publicly available information. I do not understand why those amendments are not being accepted.”
“That again brings us to the class or classes of assistance and the kinds of conditions that are attached. Most crucial, as I say, is the question of the guidelines for directions so there is an understanding for the public. The Minister says he is looking to provide transparency for the public but the public is being told that we are going to have guidelines; full stop. We are simply asking the Minister to publish the guidelines. Do not just develop guidelines but publish them. If it is the case that the Minister wants to put everything on a clearer basis, have more transparency and a statutory basis for all these things so we all know how and why they are happening, let us actually know how and why, and under what conditions and with what guidelines, they are happening.”
“What was happening was that we were being told to look at the past and all the great things we did, and making that the rationale for voting for the new power, but under the new system the Navy stopped doing search and rescue. It joined Operation Sophia and moved to a security function and the Navy started to be used primarily for security functions in the Mediterranean Sea rather than search and rescue. That is just an example. It is, I know, a different one, but it is an example that shows us that we need to look at what is in front of us and not lean on what was done in the past and all the wonderful examples of that. We need to look at the proper structure of accountability for the new, substantive changes to the system, as the Minister has described them.”
“That is not something to which the Minister is agreeing. Amendment No. 21 is similar. It proposes that if the Minister is introducing a new class of assistance, he should update and publish a list. The thing is that what people use armies for changes. The following is a slightly different example but it is a time I remember. We debated Operation Sophia in the Seanad. Government Member after Government Member stood to say they were proud of the Navy because of what it was doing on search and rescues. I am incredibly proud of the Navy because of what it does in search and rescue. However, what the Minister was saying was that the Navy was moving from a primarily humanitarian focus to a primarily security focus.”
“There is no guarantee of those being published or us knowing what they are. The case or classes of assistance and statistic information that is produced by the Defence Forces may happen under the current "old" regime, to include the reasons why the C70 was issued and granted and so forth. If we have a new system that the Minister is putting in place, where the Minister is designating classes of assistance, why should the list of those classes of assistance not be published? The Minister tells us that the Defence Forces' report may include it. No, the Defence Forces' report included the old system, under the C70s. The Minister is introducing a new system with ministerial power to designate certain categories and classes of assistance where the Army may be deployed. We simply asked him to publish them.”
“The amendments that I put forward were simply looking for the public to know how these powers operate. The Minister said that this is a substantive change to the system. It is a new system. It is perfectly legitimate that we would ask about the new system. The Minister is leaning on the past but telling us there is a substantive change and the past system is outdated. If it is a substantive change, as the Minister described it, and a new system, it is legitimate that we would say we should make it transparent. The Minister is saying that this measure is to put it on a statutory basis so that the public and the State know what is happening, but we will just know that the Minister will know things. We will not know the conditions that are attached to the approval of decisions.”
“Most of the public do not have the experience of engaging with the Defence Forces. If we create the possibility for situations where members of the public find themselves engaging with members of the Defence Forces, who are asserting authority in a situation, it would be useful and proper that the public would know exactly what the guidelines and appropriate or inappropriate actions are in terms of how those members of the Army may behave in the engagement. These are simple calls. They are not new mechanisms. They are not further safeguards. We have been through that debate on Committee Stage, and the proposal for a separate fail-safe mechanism was rejected. They are simply a requirement that the measures mentioned in the Bill are transparent, published and publicly available. It is a minimum requirement.”
“Section 40B(4) of the Bill states, "The Chief of Staff shall, with the consent of the Minister, prepare and issue guidance to members of the Defence Forces deployed in aid of the civil power." Those guidelines should be published. That is a simple thing. If guidelines are given to the Defence Forces in respect of how they are meant to engage in an area that is not within their normal remit, which is an area of civil power and civil administration, and guidelines as to what are appropriate or inappropriate actions in that context and the appropriate protocols safeguards they should be applying, the public should also be able to know those. When members of the public engage with An Garda Síochána, they know their rights and the mechanisms and guidelines that gardaí may be operating under to a degree.”
“This is so that the public can at least know that the decision has been made and that there might, at least at a minimum, be political accountability in relation to that decision and its merits are debated. Amendment No. 22 reads: In page 19, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall, in consultation with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, develop and publish guidelines for directions to deploy members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power under subsection (1).”. With these amendments, I have gone directly back to things that are in the Minister's amendment and looked for the conditions and the classes of assistance to be transparent.”
“It at least allows for transparency so that we know and can have that discussion, even if my amendments do not create an obstacle to the allocation of such classes. They simply look for transparency in relation to them. Amendment No. 21 proposes that Minister publishes the list of class or classes in aid of the civil power. It also proposes that "Where the Minister wishes to introduce a novel class of assistance", the published list would be updated. If the Government introduces a new category of situation, for example, surrounding data centres and the Critical Infrastructure Bill, or some other area is deemed as an area for the use of the Army, besides all of those uses that may be worthy that we have heard of in terms of explosives and missing persons, the Minister should publish that and it should be made clearly available.”
“The Minister may say that it is already used for those kinds of things but if they are reasonable kinds of things, there should not be an objection to publishing it and letting us know what the categories of action and situations are in which the public may expect to find the Army deployed within the civil space. Where they might have expected to find An Garda Síochána, they are finding the Army. Where they might have expected to find another member of the civil authority, the Army is suddenly involved. The public is entitled to know why and for what purposes, so that then there can be a little bit of an evaluation, at a minimum in the public space if not a requirement in the Oireachtas, as to whether it is an appropriate use of the Army.”
“What are the class or classes of assistance? Is missing persons a class? The example given by Senator McDowell in the past was in the protection of the transfer of large amounts of money. Whatever they are, let us know what the classes are because at the moment the Bill allows for the Minister to come up with new classes, categories and types of things that the Army can come in for. If the Minister for Defence and the Minister for justice agree - there is not a requirement to get their Cabinet on board but presumably they will seek to do so - they can use the Army for all kinds of things.”
“It can ask what conditions were attached to the bringing in of the Army in these situations. That is an important piece because at the moment, it simply reads, "The Minister may, subject to such conditions as he or she may specify, give general approval". This is not just for individual instances but for a "class or classes of assistance". We then come to our second amendment, amendment No. 20. It reads: The Minister shall publish, on an annual basis, the class or classes of assistance as agreed with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, for which deployment of members of the Defence Forces in aid of the civil power has been approved. All of that argument about how this will slow us down, etc., does not apply in these instances. These are instances around transparency and good governance.”
“It reads: When requested by a committee appointed by either House of the Oireachtas or jointly by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Minister shall publish information in relation to the conditions attached to the approval of decisions under subsection (2). I am going to pick one of the most harmless of the deployments, the removal of the rhododendron in a national park, which I certainly have no objection to, or we could look to the deployment of the Defence Forces in relation to the clearing of a public street. There are many different examples, but it is that the relevant committee can ask what conditions were attached when the Minister for Defence agreed that the Defence Forces would be allowed to act in this way, in the public space, in an area that would normally and properly be the remit of civil authority.”
“At the moment, the legislation speaks to the fact that the Minister for justice decides to request that the Minister for Defence would allow for the Defence Forces to be deployed and it may be subject to conditions, but which conditions? Amendment No. 19 relates to when publishing is requested by a committee. This does not slow the Government down. This is not something that means the Government cannot act in this prompt way on those matters that are being put forward by the Minister in terms of a missing person, the clearing of the rhododendron, or whatever else the Defence Forces may have been deployed for.”
“I have a number of amendments to this section. When we were discussing this on Committee Stage, there was a strong push-back against the amendment we proposed at the time, which was the idea that there would a requirement for a motion to the Dáil or Seanad in respect of such deployments. It was argued that we already do it. We do it 240-something times in the year but, as was said, there is still that question that if we are already doing it and it is already in practice, then why are we adding this specific power now? There is also the question of transparency and accountability because it is a significant thing for the Defence Forces to be deployed in a civil matter. That is why I have a set of amendments which are seeking to bring transparency to such measures as are proposed in the Bill.”
“If we are not monitoring that information, if the information is not being gathered and if the choice is being made to not know how stop and search is being deployed and used, then we are missing key information in terms of ensuring that we do not have inequality and either racial profiling or other profiling of particular cohorts and communities in the way that policing is done in Ireland. With respect, I disagree with the Minister. I concur with Senator McDowell in saying that these amendments do not deal with the issue. The Minister suggested that this addresses these issues, but it does not.”
“We in Ireland are in a position where we will not know if there are issues with the targeting of particular vulnerable individuals based on the colour of their skin or their ethnicity. We will not know that information because it is only in those cases where there is a prosecution that there will be monitoring. Again, even if we look at those figures, we will only have the figures for the prosecution, and it may well end up looking like more persons are being prosecuted for a particular offence without us knowing that a vastly disproportionate and far greater percentage of them are represented in the stop and search. We just do not know.”
“I want to reaffirm and agree with the amendments that my colleague, Senator Ruane, put forward previously in relation to stop and search. They are not addressed by this. They are not about documenting persons who are prosecuted, but about documenting patterns in how gardaí are deploying or using the powers that are being given to them. Monitoring who is stopped and who is searched is very different from tracking persons who may be moving through criminal prosecution. Of course, this is one of the issues with racial profiling, which we factually know to be an issue in nearly every jurisdiction where it has been examined, and we have seen those issues particularly in the UK, the United States and elsewhere. There is an issue with how stop and search is used, and there are concerns.”
“Maybe the balance could be got better in terms of those constitutional rights on protest on privacy, with of course the duty to protect and preserve public safety and the public. However, we will not get the chance to tweak this because of the manner in which the Minister has chosen to introduce it. That is part of the problem. That is why it is not as blunt as some people thinking everything goes and some people thinking we need to do something. It is not just what the Minister is doing but the way it is being done that is problematic and that is why I cannot support this amendment.”
“There should have been better clarity about the "reasonable excuse". Maybe the paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the proposed section 8C(b) could have been looked at but I am not going to have the opportunity to try to amend the Minister's amendment because he has introduced it on Report Stage. If he had done so on Committee Stage then we would have a Report Stage debate in which I could come back and look for the nuance. I could suggest different wording. Maybe "reasonable excuse" should be applied to the wearing of the face mask as well. Maybe it should be in relation to intent to intimidate but not in relation to an interpretative "manner that is likely to intimidate".”