Barry Ward
Dún Laoghaire · Fine Gael · Ireland
“I acknowledge all of the factors the Minister of State set out. I welcome them all and it is really important that we spread that message. The second part of the Minister of State's response is really important and that is the EU jobs part. I would not necessarily limit it just to the European Union.”
“Let us not abdicate responsibility for politically unpopular decisions, which are still the right decisions, made at European level with the involvement of Irish people.”
“There is little doubt about the positivity we associate with membership of the European Union. Some 82% of Irish people favour membership of the European Union, the highest rate of approval of any European state.”
“It is really important, not from the point of view of influence but from the point of view of presence, that there are Irish people around the table when decisions are being made so that the Irish perspective is understood and heard.”
“To look at it from a purely economic standpoint, the value of being part of the Single Market is enormous. In 1973, we imported €340 million more in goods than we exported. In recent times, we have had an export surplus. We have exported more than €53 billion more than we have imported.”
“As we hold the Presidency of the Council of the EU and are at the heart of Europe, leading the agenda and setting the tone in respect of our priorities during the Presidency, what is the Government doing to communicate to Irish people just how lucky we are to be part of the European Union?”
The complete record
Every one of 997 lines we hold for Barry Ward, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 20.
“It is about what working for a European institution entails, and then also goes that step further of properly preparing them for the jobs. I understand we are not in first place in terms of European Union countries in doing that. Other countries are much more proactive about placing their citizens in an advantageous position as they apply for those jobs. One of the key things we can do to involve the citizens of this country in the opportunities that Europe presents, in addition to all the things I said earlier, is to allow, encourage and enable them to apply for and obtain jobs within European institutions that can then help present Irish perspectives but also share the benefits with the people in this country.”
“It is really important, not from the point of view of influence but from the point of view of presence, that there are Irish people around the table when decisions are being made so that the Irish perspective is understood and heard. The Minister of State made reference to the supports that have been given to people applying for jobs within the European Union. I think we need to formalise that and I have called for this before. We need to push it further than that. We need to have a dedicated unit within the Department of foreign affairs or elsewhere that does not just advertise the jobs and make sure people know about the opportunities that are available, but also explains to them what that package entails because it is not just about pay. It is about conditions and the other things that come with it.”
“I acknowledge all of the factors the Minister of State set out. I welcome them all and it is really important that we spread that message. The second part of the Minister of State's response is really important and that is the EU jobs part. I would not necessarily limit it just to the European Union. There are other international institutions within Europe where there is a transmissibility between them and the European institutions. As Chair of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, I visited Luxembourg earlier this year with some colleagues. What is apparent is that there has been a lag in the number of Irish people applying for jobs, and that there are people at the higher levels of management within European institutions who are now coming to retirement and there are not people in the middle level to fill their positions.”
“Let us not abdicate responsibility for politically unpopular decisions, which are still the right decisions, made at European level with the involvement of Irish people. What is the Irish Government doing to communicate to Irish people in clear and unequivocal terms that we are lucky to be part of the European Union and that the benefits we get from our membership are unparalleled among those arising from forces that have an impact on the quality of life in this country? What programmes will the Government put in place to counter some of the stuff online, which is not true and is inaccurate? If we do not fill that space, others will. They will fill it with misinformation and disinformation that will convince people that being part of the European Union is a bad idea when, as I said, every objective measure shows the opposite.”
“As we hold the Presidency of the Council of the EU and are at the heart of Europe, leading the agenda and setting the tone in respect of our priorities during the Presidency, what is the Government doing to communicate to Irish people just how lucky we are to be part of the European Union? I do not say that as propaganda, although I have no doubt that some will accuse me of doing so. The objective figures do not lie. You can find fault with the European Union. Elected representatives in this country will often say that Brussels is imposing something on us or that Europe is forcing us to do something else. Let us not forget that we are Europe. When decisions are made in Brussels, our Ministers sit around the table. Our MEPs sit in the Parliament, making those decisions.”
“There are people alive in this country because laws put in place by the European Union prevented them from dying in workplace accidents. Our membership of the European Union has had benefits in terms of the Good Friday Agreement. The European Union gave us support in achieving stability in Northern Ireland. It has also given us freedom of movement, the opportunity to travel around Europe without restrictions. Last year, more than 10,000 Irish students went abroad on the Erasmus+ programme. The list goes on and on, but some people will tell you that being part of the European Union is a bad thing.”
“To look at it from a purely economic standpoint, the value of being part of the Single Market is enormous. In 1973, we imported €340 million more in goods than we exported. In recent times, we have had an export surplus. We have exported more than €53 billion more than we have imported. While we cannot assess these things only in terms of economics, GDP per capita has increased, living conditions have improved, the rate of employment has increased and the value of our economy has increased. On consumer and workers' rights, many of the rights that employees in this country enjoy were handed down from the European Commission. Ireland was sitting around the table for those discussions, but they were still handed down. Health and safety rights have also come from the European Union.”
“There is little doubt about the positivity we associate with membership of the European Union. Some 82% of Irish people favour membership of the European Union, the highest rate of approval of any European state. However, a lot of people talk down the European Union in the public discourse, suggesting that it is somehow a bad thing or that it does not do things the way they would want it to. I would join with them on certain matters. No multinational organisation like the EU is ever going to be perfect. It will never do everything I would want it to and it will never satisfy me in every respect. However, on the whole, we are very lucky to be part of the European Union. The Ireland of 1972 or 1973, before we joined what was then the European Economic Community, was a wholly different country from the Ireland of today.”
“We should be resourcing reviews so that decisions can be rendered quickly rather than delayed, as is currently the case. While I appreciate the end point we are trying to get to and the fact that nearly 10,000 houses in Dublin cannot continue to be delayed where a judicial review is partly responsible, let us look at this in the round and see if there is a better way. I give a cautious welcome to the Bill. I hope I am wrong about this and that it is going to deliver things and there will not be any ancillary problems. I look forward to its passage.”
“You should be able to demonstrate some interest in a decision or some reason as to why you are affected by it before you are entitled to start to interfere, delay or review it. That is common sense. It is what normally applies in all other areas of law. In terms of what this Bill is actually trying to achieve, if we could come at it in a slightly different way, it would be better, fairer and more transparent. We should not be afraid of judicial reviews or of the High Court stepping in to look at a decision openly and transparently. In a court, everything is done in public and a decision is usually written and delivered afterwards where it is set out in clear terms why the decision has been made one way or the other. We should not be afraid of that.”
“There were severe penalties built in for people who did not comply with that timetable. There was an order of the court to move it along. That could be done with judicial review but there is a resource issue with doing that. Equally, the penalisation of fees is essentially an attack on those bringing judicial reviews. I do not think that is the answer either. I wonder about access to justice and whether this is the right road to go down. There is obviously the locus standi issue as well, which I know is being addressed. The notion that I could live in Letterkenny and object to something in Wexford town is an absolute nonsense. In very few other areas of law is somebody with no standing allowed to make an objection the way they are in planning cases. That is something I favour removing.”
“For starters, one of the reasons judicial review is slow is because of the resources allocated to the courts. We do not have enough judges, courtrooms or staff in the Courts Service to process these decisions. We had this problem many years ago in relation to corporate cases. We stepped in and changed the way they were dealt with. There was a specific, highly managed list created within the High Court for cases involving companies and cases that were worth more that €1 million. One judge was responsible for saying what the timeline was once a case came to court, including the deadlines - side A would present their submissions in two weeks' time and side B would respond in four weeks' time, there be an opportunity in six weeks' time to come back, and there would be a hearing to deal with the case in eight weeks' time.”
“We have this right as a citizen to challenge an administrative decision made by a State agency, Minister or whatever it might be, go to an independent High Court judge and say we think this decision has not been made correctly, there is a flaw in the process and we want the judge to examine it. That is a right that we have given the people of this country since the 1930s. I understand that it is frustrating. Sometimes, the exercise of rights is inconvenient. I also understand that the Minister of State has to do something about it because he cannot allow the situation to continue where there is delay in the construction and delivery of housing for the people who need it. I accept all of that. Faster decisions and faster delivery are aims we must all strive for. However, we can look at the way we do it.”
“I recognise also that in Dublin, for example, at the moment there are 9,562 houses being delayed by judicial review. That is an astonishing figure given where we are in the current crisis and what we have to do. That is also about 16.5% of all the development in Dublin, so it is a shocking figure. It does merit being dealt with and a situation where we actually address that problem. However, there are ways we can address it other than trying to put a stricture on judicial review. Judicial review is a constitutional right that is afforded to Irish citizens. It is built into our Constitution and is a really positive thing. It is something that we have beyond most European countries, in fact.”
“If the decision to be made is to be a democratic one, it should be made by democratically elected people and should reflect the democratic will of the people in a given area. That is a broader point than the legislation before us but it is important given this is planning and development legislation. I will turn to what I think is probably the main impetus of this legislation, which is about the reform of the judicial review in the planning process. Again, in broad terms, I welcome this. I recognise that Gabriel Makhlouf, the Governor of the Central Bank, said last year that the number one problem in housing development delivery was planning - not financing or other things but planning for the provision of local amenities and utilities. That is a fair criticism. It is far too slow.”
“We should now be looking at returning to a situation where we are giving decision-making powers about local planning back to councillors rather than constantly leaving it in the hands of officials who are not accountable. At the moment we have a massive democratic deficit in terms of planning decisions that is unique in the context of the European Union because councillors are not making planning decisions. In fact, when I was a councillor, I avoided ringing planners about issues because I did not want to be seen to be interfering in that process when, actually, I should have been the one making the decision. I am not a professional planner but we used to have planning committees that were advised by professional planners and we had the benefit of all that expertise.”
“I understand why when we got to the year 2000 that the law had to be changed to take planning decisions out of the hands of councillors because they had been misused and we had to re-establish confidence in planning decisions but the world has changed a lot since 2000. The level of accountability, scrutiny and regulation of councillors has massively changed. It was our party that set up many of those changes in how we require people to be accountable, in terms of their behaviour, their conflicts of interest, moneys they receive, donations, fundraising, all of that stuff. That has been completely changed. We now have the Standards in Public Office Commission whose sole job is to regulate politicians in terms of that behaviour. It is important to have this debate in the context of this legislation.”
“In my view they are much better equipped to make decisions for the people they represent than officials who are answerable really only to the Custom House or to the Department of local government. We have the least powerful and most centralised local government system in the whole of the European Union. We should change that. Changing it is a vote of confidence in the fact that at local level, we have genuinely competent, capable, responsible, hardworking elected representatives and we should be devolving power to them, particularly when it comes to planning. We all know that in the 1990s, there was a certain small cohort of councillors who misbehaved and acted in a criminal fashion in some instances.”
“The reality is that most councillors around the country, be they city or county councillors, are effectively local ambassadors to the chief executive of a given local authority or the director of services. In real terms, decisions are made at local government level by unelected officials who are not accountable to the local population, who will never knock on the door of a local resident and ask them what they think about the development plan or whatever issue it is, and who do not actually have their feet on the ground the way councillors do. Councillors are doing this all the time. They are knocking on doors. They are at residents' meetings and public meetings. They are available to people and they hear people's views all the time.”
“I also welcome the move to ten-year county development plans. The existing structure means that almost as soon as the last one is finished, we are looking at preparations for the next one so I think a ten-year period is more reasonable. I would favour much greater powers for elected councillors. Again, this is something I have complained about to the Minister of State. I complained about it to him when we were both councillors, never mind when he became Minister of State in the Department of housing. We do not give nearly enough power or credit to councillors. They are the hardest working elected people in this country, yet they have no resources but worse than that, they have no powers.”
“It is not a bad place to live or anything like that but the more we reduce the size the less livable the space becomes. That is increasingly true if we have families in that space, especially larger families with more children. Irish people have not got their heads around the notion that we can live in apartments perfectly comfortably. One of the mistakes we have made in this jurisdiction in terms of apartment living is that in a three-bedroom apartment, for example, there is only one reception room or one living space. If you have in that space two or three kids - anybody who has two or three kids will be familiar with this notion - one space can be very difficult and it is not built for harmonious family living. Maybe changing the attitude to what a family dwelling looks likes in terms of the layout of it will be an important thing.”
“I also agree with the comments that have been made about apartment sizes. We cannot win on this in some respects because on the one hand we have people telling us that in order to make projects viable, they have to reduce the unit size in order to make them easier to build. I get that but I honestly find it difficult to understand how developers cannot make a profit in the current environment with house prices and rental prices where they are. It is difficult to understand how when it was profitable to build the same thing a number of years ago, even taking into account the increasing cost of materials, etc., it cannot be built in a profitable way even at the standards we had before. I am not sure that the reduction in building standards and the size of apartments is the answer. I live in an apartment of less than 80 m sq.”
“That is obviously a drafting point that will get exactly no traction with anyone outside this House but it is pertinent to this legislation because one of the aims here is apparently to improve clarity, if the explanatory memorandum and the bumpf around this is to be believed. It is a simple thing. Generally speaking, the aims of the Bill are clear and well placed. It makes perfect sense to me to increase the Housing Finance Agency's statutory borrowing limit to €15 billion. I do not have a difficulty with that. I wonder if maybe we should index link these limits rather than coming back every few years to change them in an amending piece of legislation. We could save ourselves the hassle if we just linked the limit to an index that allowed it to increase accordingly every year.”
“It is something that we do as a matter of course in this House but I think it is bad practice. We should be able to pick up the law and read it and have an idea of what it says. Even in the description of the sections it does not tell us what the amendment is supposed to do. It just says it is an amendment to section 38 of the 2000 Act, or whatever it might be. It would be much more constructive, in the first instance, to say what that amending section is supposed to do but, second, to take the section that is being amended, repeal it and restate it in the legislation so it is there for everyone to read. It is a simple thing that we could do as a general practice in this House but we do not.”
“Cuirim fáilte aireach roimh an mBille seo. Níl mé cinnte go bhfuil gach rud atá sa Bhille i gceart. Tá roinnt fadhbanna agam leis freisin. I give a cautious welcome to the Bill. I recognise what it is attempting to do but I want to raise a couple of issues with the Minister of State. The first one is something I raise in general about legislation, which is a drafting issue. It is not specific to planning legislation. When the Bill becomes an Act, if a citizen tries to read it, almost every single section describes an amendment to either the Planning and Development Act 2000 or the 2024 Act, which means that this Act will not be legible without also having copies of those two Acts. That makes it very difficult for any citizen to penetrate. It is not unique to this legislation.”
“We have to use our Presidency to give them every opportunity to deliver, to recognise the work they have done and to allow them to become part of what is the most progressive union on planet and the biggest trading bloc, that genuinely stands up for human rights, the rule of law and the perseverance of the right of everybody to enjoy life equally.”
“Even in terms of the courts, before we became a republic, decisions made in courts in London were binding on Irish courts. There was a monetary union, and we were dependent on the British exchange rate and its currency. In 1973, for the first time we sat around tables in Europe as equals with other European states. We should aim, to the greatest extent possible, to encourage any country that wants to share that experience of true independence and taking their place among the international community. Over the past number of months as Chair of the European affairs committee, I have met with representatives from Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania, Moldova and Ukraine. These are all countries that have bent over backwards to become part of the European Union. Some of them still have work do.”
“We can build those alliances at that level that might actually make a difference in a way that we, as a solo country, cannot do. Enlargement is part of the values priority. We have such a close relationship with enlargement, not just from when the ten accessions states joined in 2004 but going back further. We were part of the first accession. It was largely during our Presidency in the first half of 1990 that German reunification was debated. Ireland's experience of being part of the European Union has been almost universally positive. For all of its flaws, we have benefited significantly and not just from Structural Funds, motorways, infrastructure and things like that. We were a postcolonial society and country that grew up for its first 50 years in the shadow of Britain economically.”
“Never is credit given on the opposition benches to people like Leo Varadkar who was the first western leader to call out Israel for what they did, or the Tániste who was in the Department of Foreign Affairs when we recognised Palestine as a state, or the Government for building an alliance of states at European level that is beginning to approach this in a different way. Spain, Malta, Belgium, Slovenia and the Netherlands are changing their attitude to what is happening there. If we can build that coalition at European level, we might be able to make a change in the way Israel is treated by the international community. Ireland cannot do it alone and this is why being part of the European Union and having the Presidency is so important at this pivotal time.”
“Even though USAID has been slashed and burned under the Trump presidency, in the past the Africa Acts meant that aid would be delivered but it had to be spent on American products. It came with strings attached. Irish aid and foreign policy do not do that. It is worth recognising that as well. It is also important in what we have identified as our priorities is values. I listened to my colleague criticising Europe's reaction to what is happening in Gaza. I agree with a lot of what he said. I have been consistently disappointed by the European approach to this. Contrary to what he said, I have not been disappointed by the Government's reaction. In fact, Ireland has led the charge in recognising what is happening in Gaza.”
“More important than just diplomacy, we have also have consider our relationship with other countries, particularly in the global south and Africa. We have to move away from a situation where we just see them as recipients of aid but instead as partners for natural resources, trade and development. It is not just because the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, is here that I want to pay tribute to Irish Aid. The manner in which Ireland provides aid to the global south is beyond compare because it does not come with strings attached. We invest in particular countries and identify particular projects. The money and resources are diverted into them but not with strings attached.”
“I am grateful we have the opportunity to do that and we have a strong team in place at official and political level. However, in the context of the MFF and the changing political and diplomatic landscape of the globe, it is really that we do not cut back on the external action service in the European Union. We have to maintain the European footprint. We have to do so in a way that does not cut our aid budget. Only Ireland and Spain, as members state, have increased their overseas development aid budgets and that is a challenge. When I have said that to colleagues around Europe, they feel that because their countries have cut their ODA budgets, Europe cannot do it. I hope that will be borne out in the MFF negotiations.”
“We have the best chance here because in 2027 there will be all kinds of elections in Europe that may change the political landscape and make it much more difficult to get things done. When we look at what has to be done, there are some really important things within that Presidency. We have set our priorities as competitiveness, security and values but the MFF looms large as well. That seven-year budget is a constant battle between the frugals who want to cut and cut,and those who want to expand spending. Ireland, as an honest broker, running this Presidency has to be the middle ground that can bring those two sides together and that will not be an easy task. It will not be easy to broker a deal on the MFF. If we can do it, or substantially do it before the end of this year, it will put Europe in a much stronger position.”
“There is an opportunity for us to achieve great things through this Presidency but also an expectation that Ireland will deliver an excellent Presidency. I fully expect we will but so much of what we could achieve during that time is outside our control. It depends on the co-operation and ambition of the other 26 member states who will share those meetings with us during the Presidency. We do not know if something will happen to us like what happened to Cyprus. We do not know what complication or what attack there will be. When the French had their Presidency, they did not expect war to break out in Ukraine. When the Croatians had their Presidency, they did not expect Covid to hit. There will be unforeseen events that will interrupt our ability to get things done.”
“We are one of the older members of the European Union so there is a breadth of experience and understanding of the European Union within the Civil Service and the body politic in this country that does not exist in most countries. Cyprus, before us, is a younger member and a much smaller country that faced enormous challenges with what happened with Iran and attacks on their own soil during their Presidency. That made it incredibly difficult for them to move the agenda they had set out for their Presidency. We can only hope that will not befall us during our Presidency. Lithuania also joined the European Union, like Cyprus, in 2004 so is a relatively new member. They will take over from us next year. As I look at our Presidency, we exist in a gap in the foreseeable potential political turmoil.”
“It has been in the making for over a year, and credit is due to those officials for what they have done and the Ministers who will coming into play chairing meetings. I know from speaking to colleagues that they are so prepared. They have a map of where they want to go during the Presidency and who the personalities are on their Council and how they will achieve what they have to achieve. Although it is not an officially announced theme, one of the things we have to look at is expectation management in the context of the Presidency. There is an enormous weight of expectation on Ireland. It is not just because this is our eighth Presidency. We sometimes forget that we were part of the first enlargement of the European Union in 1973.”
“There was also the recitation of Seamus Heaney's poetry by Ruth Negga. It was a lovely event. I was on radio this morning and one of questions asked was whether we will have the opportunity to make our own mark on this Presidency. We have started down that road. The opening ceremony today was a triumph for everyone involved. It is also a reflection of the level of organisation and preparation that have gone into the Presidency. As Chair of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, I know we have had a lot of dealings with officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who are involved in preparing for the Presidency and the level of preparation is extraordinary. It has not happened in the past week or two.”
“I thought this debate was about the EU Presidency which we took over today rather than an opportunity to criticise every aspect of the European Union. Listening to the debate, I think some people have seen it in those terms. I do not for a moment suggest Europe is perfect or that it does not have its flaws or areas where we have an opportunity to correct the problems with Europe but what we saw today with the opening at Dublin Castle was an extraordinary event that did reflect our uniqueness but also our uniqueness within the context of Europe. I congratulate those involved in organising the ceremony. I want to mark the extraordinary contribution that Carrie Crowley made as MC of the event and the extraordinary musical talent of Cormac Begley and Iarla Ó Lionáird who really showed the depth of musical talent and culture in this country.”
“I might start by recognising a very strong European who was a former Member of this House and who passed away on Monday. David Andrews was a TD for Dún Laoghaire and was somebody who showed on a number of occasions as Minister for Foreign Affairs his commitment to the European project and his commitment to the ideals of Europe. He is a great loss. I wanted to pay tribute to him. I have not had an opportunity in the House to pay my respects to his family, to his wife Annette, his sons David and Barry, and his daughters, Mary, Sinead and Claire. Déanaim comhbhrón leo as ucht an chaillteanais atá acu an tseachtain seo. I wanted to mark that because I thought it was important in the context of this debate.”
“Of course we send out the message to people but the real issue in this Topical Issue I am raising with the Minister is that a lot of people who are members of the LGBT community either do not feel safe or feel that when something happens to them, which is demonstrably motivated by hate, there is not an adequate response from the system. That is something we have to tackle because if we fail to do so, it creates a much greater problem.”
“There is not really the provision of a hate crime. It is probably unfair to ask the Minister on the hoof the number of prosecutions that involved an increased tariff on sentence because of a hate element. I do not know if the Minister would have those figures to hand. However, that is a matter we should be looking at because if it is the case that it is a very small number, that is a demonstration that legislation that is now on the Statute Book and has been operational for 18 months is not being effectively used to tackle these things. Of course, we have to give it time but an analysis after 18 months gives us a reasonable assessment of whether the legislation is being used. I also acknowledge what the Minister said about disregard scheme. I absolutely agree with that, and it is overdue, but it is not relevant to this discussion.”
“I thank the Minister and appreciate the acknowledgment that this behaviour is ongoing. It is important to say clearly that there is a problem. I also appreciate what the Minister said about the legislation that was passed and commenced in 2024. However, I am not convinced that it is sufficient. What it does is to give greater discretion to a judge to consider a particular hate element to be an aggravating factor. There is certainly a part of me that would have thought it should not have been necessary to put that into law. I do not know, for example, what training is being provided to judges to deal with hate aspects of crimes that come before them for sentence. My big problem is that we had much stronger hate legislation with the Bill that was before these Houses. It was watered down in amendments on subsequent Stages.”
“I would really like him to set out the steps his Department is putting in place to give confidence to the LGBT community, and to show them in a concrete manner that we are serious as a body politic about tackling this issue and sending out a message to anybody who thinks he or she can behave this way that it will not be tolerated, that there will be prosecutions, that there will be serious consequences from the courts, and that the Minister is satisfied that An Garda Síochána and the criminal court system have everything they need to prosecute these offences, hold people to account and mete out the appropriate punishments that will be effective in stopping this kind of behaviour.”
“We cannot have a situation where ordinary, law-abiding, decent people are being persecuted by a tiny section of society that has some misguided belief that it should or can pursue these people, as I say, not for any good reason but simply because of who they are and, in this instance, because of their sexual orientation. It cannot be allowed to continue. It must be stopped. The reason I am raising this issue with the Minister is not just because this is Pride Week, although it is and so it is appropriate.”
“My understanding is that very often in these cases, when people are brought before the Garda for interview or brought before the courts to account for what they have done, they will say their action was not hate motivated and was not because the victims were members of the LGBT community, for example. My concern is that the law is not equipped to address the hate element properly. Listening to members of the LGBT community, I have noted that they are concerned that gardaí are either ill-equipped or unable to deal with these matters in a way that satisfies them that they are safe. I know the Minister will agree that this is something we have to remedy.”
“There are those people who think it is acceptable to behave in a way that threatens and frightens members of a particular community, not for any good reason but simply because they are members of that community, and they think they can do that with impunity. Of course, we have incitement to hatred legislation dating back to the early 1990s, which we know is largely ineffective because there has only been a sum total of about 50 prosecutions under it. Of course it is an offence to intimidate somebody anyway. It is an offence to threaten somebody. There were ancillary offences in that prosecution that were not necessarily based on the hate crime element of it.”
“People were brought before the courts in relation to the matter, and that is a matter for the courts. The point I wanted to make was that I raised that issue. I give credit to the gardaí involved for acting swiftly. Somebody was apprehended, and that will follow due course. The point I am making is that in Ireland of 2024, or indeed Ireland of 2026, the kind of thing I have described is still happening. In 2024, there was still hate crime, hate speech or incitement to hatred legislation before these Houses that was due to become law. It was essentially watered down before it did and it has been abandoned.”
“I thank the Minister for coming in to take this issue. It is important, particularly in this week of Pride, that we acknowledge there are still issues concerning the LGBT community and the confidence it might have in the prosecution of offences or the following up of allegations related to events that clearly have a hate motivation to them. In June 2024, when I was a Senator, I raised an issue in the Seanad about two young men who were pursued through Phoenix Park with hammers and knives and who were very frightened, for understandable reasons, by an attack during which there were repeated shouts of homophobic slurs at them. I do not want to or expect the Minister to go into the details of that case because I do not know the status of the prosecution.”
“The test for leave for a judicial review is amended in section 35(6). There is no need for that. We should allow the courts to do their job. Judicial review is a constitutional right that citizens have. We should not water that down. If they want to challenge it, let them challenge it. It is the same with the cost provisions in section 37(1). Why on earth would we need to put a cost provision in? The courts are managing that for themselves.”
“It is a consistent disservice that we do in this House to the citizens of this country that we cannot, in amending a section, essentially repeal the old one and restate it in this Bill so that it is easily read by citizens. It would be an easy thing to do, yet we never, ever do it. This is, far and away, not the worst example. There have been more than a dozen Road Traffic (Amendment) Acts, for example. The 1961 Act, the primary Act, simply does not exist any more because it has been amended so many times, yet we have no consolidated Act. It is a point I make all the time because we would serve people much better if we were willing to actually engage with something that they could read. The other drafting points I wanted to make relate to the judicial review provisions in section 35 and elsewhere.”