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 10 of 20.
“We benefit from this because we benefit from improved regulated international trade in the current global environment, where trade, particularly rules-based trade, is being consistently undermined by the big players like the United States. I join with the condemnation of how America is behaving in terms of international trade. This is actually the antidote to that in many respects. Agreements between countries that create a framework for companies to exist within that regulatory environment is the way we promote a global rules-based trade system. Without that, we are nowhere. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that rejecting CETA by not passing this legislation will somehow lead to the Irish people being better off. They will not be. The opposite will be the case.”
“There is nothing to prevent any Government, be it an Irish Government, a French Government, a Latvian Government or a Cypriot Government, from implementing legitimate policies, which we do as a sovereign country and a sovereign Parliament. There is nothing to suggest we could not do that in light of the CETA agreement. Having listened to many of the speakers in this debate, I really do think that the opposition that has been put up is a string of bogey-men that are not real. They do not actually reflect the reality of what is in this. I say that having looked into this in quite some detail and spoken to people who know a great deal more about trade law than I do. It is not there.”
“However, it is very clear that the CETA agreement does not provide in the relevant articles a right for companies to expect certain profits. Reference was made to changes in relation to, as Deputy Murphy said, a left Government prioritising non-fossil fuels, as if no other Government could possibly do that despite the fact that this Government has been fighting to reduce emissions in this country for I do not know how long. Let us say for argument's sake that a future Government tries to put in place a policy that is going to be detrimental to petrochemical companies. There is nothing in the CETA agreement that would allow such a petrochemical company, be it Canadian or a US-owned Canadian subsidiary, to go to an investor court and say it thought it would be pulling in the big bucks for the next ten or 20 years.”
“In the instance of a dispute between, say, a Canadian company and an Irish Government, that is based on the agreement between them and the provisions laid down in the CETA agreement, but there is nothing in here that we should be afraid of. I have spoken to a lot of trade law experts about this and a lot of people on both sides of this debate and they are not afraid of the things - the bogey-men - that my friends on the opposite side are putting out there, so let us be reasonable about this. We cannot say there is anything in this that is actually going to destroy trade or force the Government into particular policy positions. Of course, Governments cannot behave capriciously, but that is already the case under Irish law and European law, so there is no change there.”
“Looking at the CETA agreement and the provisions within it, which include these investor courts or this arbitration system, are they something we should be afraid of? Why should we be afraid? The only rhetoric I have heard in this debate as to why we should be afraid is that it is not Irish courts making the decision, but an arbitration body, albeit one made up of independent people and experts in their field and people who have no skin in the game. That is where decisions will be made instead of in Irish courts. One would not be any more confident of a result going the way one wants it to go in an Irish court than one would in the investor court, though. In fact, the greatest confidence one can have in terms of how a decision might go is whether it is in accordance with the rules or the basis on which that decision was made.”
“In this instance, the law would not just be the CETA agreement, but the agreement between the individual companies or what they have agreed with particular entities. That would be the law that would be assessed by an investor court. So, let us put aside this bogey-man nonsense, which has been going on for some time now. There are a couple of things we should actually be looking at in the context of passing this legislation. We know it is there to allow us to ratify the CETA agreement. Is the CETA agreement good for Ireland and good for Irish people? It absolutely is. I will come back to the comments I made about this being a small, open economy that relies on positive trade with other countries around the world. It is good for the Irish economy and the people living within the Irish economy.”
“Let me explain to Deputy Murphy what the law is in case there is any doubt about it. Yes, the High Court interprets Irish law but CETA will essentially become the law for these disputes between companies and states or between states. We are signing up to that law. We know what that law says. It will be applied in exactly the same way that a High Court judge would interpret any law. By the way, High Court judges do not just deal with Irish law. The High Court deals with contractual disputes all the time in which it parses agreements between individuals and companies. So, the law is more than just the statutes that are passed by this House or the orders signed by Ministers. The law is a complex nebulous thing that is made up of all kinds of documents from all kinds of different sources.”
“The only difference is the High Court is an Irish institution. If the argument being made is that only Irish institutions should make judgments on disputes between companies and states, then those Deputies have severely misunderstood the patriotism of our High Court judges because High Court judges have proven themselves time and again to, without passion or fear, apply the rule of law whether it is to Ireland's benefit or not and they would do the same thing. That is exactly what the investor court system will do. That is the law.”
“Those speakers are trying to create some kind of bogeyman, suggesting to people there is something to be afraid of in this legislation; there is not. As I have said, the speakers themselves say this has been happening for years. It has and yet we still have a fair and accountable global trade system. It is not perfect by any means, but it delivers for this country and it is very important for the economic survival of this country. The point is that it is not a bogeyman because it is something that applies the rule of law. If a company does decide to sue Ireland for whatever it might be, the decisions that the investor courts, the arbitration body, would make would be in accordance with the provisions of the agreement and the rule of law. That is what it would do in exactly the same way, by the way, that the High Court would.”
“What has been said repeatedly in contributions not just from the last two speakers, but from other speakers, is that companies can sue or can bring legal action or litigation. Again, of course, they can and that is happening. They can bring such an action at any time; it does not mean they are going to win it. When talking about investor courts, we are talking about a panel of independent highly skilled international experts with representation from both sides, Canada and Europe. It is not as if it is being sent off to some unrepresentative body that does not know anything about this or is hell-bent on some kind of new world order that is going to change the face of the earth for the rest of us. That is not the case.”
“It absolutely did identify issues and this Bill addresses those issues per the Costello judgment. However, there have been extrapolations from that judgment that I do not think are correct. The reality is that what we are debating today is whether we are willing to put in place the mechanisms that are proposed in the Bill, particularly section 4 inserting the new section 25A, to ensure that this country can benefit from CETA allowing enhanced and beneficial trade with Canada. In order to somehow muddy the waters around this what has been dragged in is that US companies could use a Canadian subsidiary company to get involved in investor courts or somehow to challenge the Irish Government's decision on fossil fuels. Of course, that is true but such a subsidiary company would have no more standing than any other company.”
“The things that Deputy Boyd Barrett has just lamented so much have provided the quality of living in this country and the fact that we exist in the top ten of pretty much any metric that can be picked to assess the quality of life for people in this country and what they enjoy. That exists because of trade, because we are open to trading with other countries and because we are a fair country that abides by agreements just like this one. What CETA seeks to do is to further that trade relationship with Canada. It is in my opinion a benign agreement that will benefit this country and its citizens, not for 20 years but I hope for generations to come. That is what it is. Contrary to what Deputy Murphy said, the Supreme Court did not say, for example, that there were constitutionality issues with the existence of these courts.”
“It is entirely reasonable. It is absolutely creating what are called investor courts but it is an arbitration mechanism that is binding. That is what it is and that exists in all kinds of areas. Listening to some of the speakers today, one would think that this is exceptional although at the same time they have said that this is already happening; it is not new. Yet we already have systems that work in terms of international trade. Here is the kicker for me. We are a small island on the periphery of Europe, as big as we like to think we are within the European Union and as much as we might punch above our weight. Our economy, which is an open economy, depends on trade first and foremost.”
“Second, it is not the case that governments' legitimate policy aspirations can be overturned by investor courts. Third, it is the case that such agreements exist in all kinds of commercial agreements between companies and indeed between states. The Members will know that arbitration exists in all kinds of areas, including in binding areas. The suggestion I have heard from some of the speakers in this debate is that this will completely upend our legal system, that the courts will no longer have any jurisdiction and will completely end the system that we have enjoyed since the foundation of the State whereby we, as the people, are sovereign and actually make decisions. The reality is that systems like this already happen in all kinds of agreements, both between us and other countries and between companies as well.”
“I have been listening to the debate and what some of the speakers have said. I have concluded that the world through the eyes of Deputies Murphy and Boyd Barrett must be incredibly clear because there is no nuance whatever in what they have said. The claims they made about the intentions of this Government and about what this agreement has done are completely unsubstantiated and completely false in my opinion. I do not claim to be an expert in trade law but I can read and I have read the relevant aspects of the agreement. Let us start with the first misapprehension from those two speakers that I have listened to. The anticipation or the promise of profit is not a basis on which somebody can go to the investor court and have a decision overturned.”
“Donnybrook garage sends chills down people's spines because when you get to Donnybrook garage, you can sometimes sit on the bus for five minutes as the drivers change over, which is not ideal either. If an empty bus started at Donnybrook garage, however, it could deal with many of the capacity issues created by a ghost bus coming through the system and causing problems. I acknowledge that a review has taken place. I acknowledge what the Minister of State said about Bus Átha Cliath continuing to monitor the E2 route. I welcome that. I ask that it would take into account the fact that it does not always work the way it is envisaged to work. It does not always do what it needs to do. It does not always meet passenger capacity.”
“People cannot get on the bus when it gets to Honeypark, where I live, or when it gets to Deansgrange or wherever it might be. That is the issue. Maybe the review shows that when it works well, it works well. I would not dispute that. However, I know from hearing from people and, unfortunately, from standing at the bus stop myself that there are times when the bus comes and you cannot get on it. That is not okay. This is a long route so that knock-on effect continues right the way along the route, all along the N11 and into town. With such a long route, maybe there are issues that could be addressed by starting a bus somewhere along the route; for example at Donnybrook garage.”
“I acknowledge the points made by the Minister of State about the investment in the bus service and the provision of the 90-minute fare. These are all positive things. I do not dispute that for a moment. I also welcome the acknowledgement by the NTA that there are capacity issues on the E1 route. I think that is correct. I do not agree that passenger demand is being met on the E2 route, although I will say that when it works the way it is supposed to work, that is probably true. The problem arises when a bus driver is sick and does not turn up for his or her shift in Dún Laoghaire that morning. His or her bus then does not leave Dún Laoghaire. I do not know what provisions are in place to replace that driver to ensure that a bus leaves. The service is then a bus short and there is a knock-on effect all along the route.”
“However, can we please make a commitment to drive with the NTA to ensure there is capacity and reliability so that people can depend on that service?”
“When people go to their normal bus stop to get to work and an earlier bus has not arrived, it causes a backlog at the bus stop. Similarly, the previous bus stops will have been more crowded than usual. This means that when the bus arrives, it is so crowded that people cannot get on. In that situation, it cannot be okay to tell people they are not going to get to work on time today because the bus they normally get - the bus they expect to be there at a particular time with capacity to get on - cannot take them. That is not okay. Such unreliability is not fair to the people who live in these areas. I have engaged with the NTA and I accept that a review has taken place. I am certainly anxious to hear what the results of that will be.”
“I have supported that. It has been problematic in areas like Shankill, where I have opposed it on the basis that it will cause knock-on impacts for local communities. However, BusConnects as a project has been really positive. It has shown the commitment of the State and the Government to providing public transport that is attractive, usable and incentivised for people all over this city, so it is a good thing. If we want people to use that public transport, however, we have to make it easy, comfortable and reliable for them. The problem I have with the E1 and the E2 is that is not always the case. The bus can be rammed, first of all. We would live with that but what is much worse is not being able to get on the bus at all.”
“I am not taking it down in that way. However, it is a long bus route. I know from talking to people and from people emailing my office that there are several instances at rush hour when the bus arrives at a bus stop locally and they cannot get on because it is full, or the bus does not turn up. That is a major problem. I have been engaging with the Department and the National Transport Authority, NTA, on the issue. I acknowledge that a review took place in September. A review was undertaken. I understand that other buses have been added to the system and that is welcome. The problem continues, however. It is particularly the case on the E2 service, with which I am familiar. There are times when you are standing at the bus stop, but the bus is full when it comes. We have invested a huge amount of money in BusConnects.”
“It affects people on the E1 and the E2, particularly before the Foxrock church bus stop, because each of the buses serves that part of its route on its own. If there is a ghost bus as it is known locally, or a bus that does not turn up because a driver has not turned up at the depot in Dún Laoghaire or Ballywaltrim and the bus therefore cannot leave, the next bus is so full that nobody can get on it at Galloping Green and Stillorgan, etc., on the route to town. It is a significant problem. I acknowledge that this is an excellent service for the most part. It runs every seven or eight minutes during rush hour, morning and evening, and every nine or ten minutes during the day. It is a great service. It provides a really important link for people in the suburban areas to the south east of the city into town.”
“I want to raise the issue of capacity on the E1 and E2 bus routes, on the E-spine of BusConnects. The E1 and E2 routes go between Northwood and Bray, and between Harristown and Dún Laoghaire, respectively. The E2 is the much-lamented old 46A. We in Dún Laoghaire miss it terribly. We have to call it the E2 now. I take the E2 bus and I am grateful for it. It is also a 24-hour service which is not to be sniffed at. I take it home from Kildare Street after late votes on a Wednesday. There is not a capacity issue after midnight during the week, but there is a capacity issue in the mornings. I receive representations about this all the time. There is a problem with capacity. I know from getting the bus in the morning that there can be times when the bus passes full.”
“We need to have a situation where we are bringing onstream all of the renewables that are available to us and we need to speed up the work being done on the Celtic interconnector with Franc, so we can plug into a European energy market that will finally bring a little bit of competition to those people in this country who are running utility companies and who are, at the moment, as far as I can see, fleecing the ordinary consumer in Ireland. It is not acceptable and we need to change it. Yes, we need to put in place the infrastructure but the CRU needs to take responsibility for doing what it can in the short term and not hang around until the prices go up again, without any explanation or justification as to why that is.”
“It is shocking that we are not taking more energy from the wind and the waves that crash against the shores of this country. It is a crime we are not doing it. I welcome the infrastructure measures the Government announced today, which will reduce the opportunity for people to object to such plans. This is the right way to go about it. It should not be the case that someone can live in County Donegal and object to a wind farm off the coast of County Waterford when they have no locus standi and no basis to object to it. It is right that we change this. We need to do it even faster than what is proposed.”
“I understand in the context of the Ukraine war why this happened. I also understand why we put in place measures to protect people with the exceptional measures put in place in the previous two budgets. However, prices have remained high and there is no justification for it. Nobody can give me a reason I am satisfied with as to why they remain so stubbornly high. It is grossly unfair on the people of this country that we pay among the highest rates for energy in the European Union and without any good reason for it. Let us address this. One of the ways we can address this, and reference has also been made to the renewables issue, is by bringing onstream renewable energy in this country. Offshore wind farms are an absolute obvious ask.”
“Households are not unitary things. They do not all look the same and they do not all pay the same for electricity. If we take the average, it will be above what the average pensioner is paying because the average pensioner is in a household that is smaller and, therefore, has fewer energy demands. It is comparing apples and oranges, which is not to say I am happy with the cost of electricity because I am not. Everyone of us in the House acknowledges that electricity and energy costs in this country are way too high. They are inexplicably high. This is something I have raised in the Chamber previously. We have put in place a regulator to ensure the cost of energy in this country is managed yet we have seen huge spikes in the cost of electricity in circumstances where 40% of our electricity is generated from renewables. How can this be?”
“I like numbers too but I like when they are used in an appropriate way. To take the average amount spent on electricity according to figures in the Irish Independent , which came from the Department, and then apply them to a pensioner who is not necessarily paying the average amount is a little bit disingenuous and it does not reflect the reality of the situation.”
“They will survive without the reduction to 9%. Next door to them there might be a small café that might not survive without it. The point I am making relates to the cost of this measure. As I have said, I support the measure but in terms of its cost, we would be much better off spending the bulk of that money on the SME sector than on those parts of the hospitality sector that do not need it, the large and very large companies that still provide huge value in the economy but that do not have the same reliance on the scheme.”
“I acknowledge all of that and in no way want to suggest the Minister is not focusing on SMEs. I acknowledge all of the work that is being done. I know SMEs are the backbone of the economy. The quibble I have in relation to the VAT 9 reduction is that it is across the board. That does not mean that big businesses are not valuable - of course, they are - but they do not need the reduction in the way that small businesses do. We have had this conversation previously and I would much rather see a targeted relief for small businesses. Whether one picks a metric of turnover, profit, number of employees or something else, there is a metric that can be picked to do this. Let us take McDonald's as an example. McDonald's is a franchise and is owned by business people all over the country who run good businesses.”
“There are small businesses in every town and village in this country, including businesses in my own community and constituency which have been in contact with me, that need that reduction but they will not get it for whatever reason. They are outside the scheme because they are not providing certain goods. Small businesses are not all getting that benefit but are still facing increased costs of doing business. I am wondering if there could be targeted supports specifically for those small businesses.”
“I acknowledge what the Minister has done in relation to small businesses and business supports. I also recognise that there has been a reduction in the cost of doing business, which is well and good. I support the VAT 9 scheme because it is important to provide that leg-up, particularly for small businesses who need it. The reality is, however, that it is a blunt instrument. It is a universal benefit and, therefore, it benefits those enormous companies and even those large companies that do not need the support. I recognise that it is difficult to construct a mechanism that allows us to give the benefit to one group of companies and not to others but the reality is that large companies do not need that VAT reduction. They will survive. They welcome it but they will survive without it.”
“I welcome the VAT 9 proposal which will come into effect in July of next year. However, I am wondering, particularly in the case of small and medium enterprises that will not benefit from the scheme, if there could be targeted supports for them in respect of increased costs of doing business.”
“Will the Minister commit, acknowledging this is going to happen in stages, to giving us a timetable for how this might happen, when it might happen and when each stage of the delivery of this commitment in the programme for Government might happen?”
“I appreciate what the Minister said about the investment. I acknowledge the huge investment and commitment to making this happen. I also appreciate her acknowledgement that the pressures on childcare providers are not the same throughout the country. In a constituency like Dún Laoghaire where the cost of living and the cost of accommodation are so much higher, would the Minister consider, as part of the incentives being put in place to ensure childcare providers remain within the schemes, that the incentives might be varied from one area to another? That would be in recognition of the fact that the challenges are greater for childcare providers in an area like south Dublin than they might be in an area where the cost of living is lesser.”
“I understand it is over a five-year period and it will come in phases, and I acknowledge the work that has been done so far. What can we say to assuage the concerns of parents whose children are in facilities exiting the scheme?”
“I acknowledge what the Minister said about the State not being able to mandate providers to get involved in the scheme. Would she also acknowledge that many have pulled out? It is a cause of huge concern for parents where their child is in a facility exiting the scheme rather than being included in the scheme. It would appear those providers are saying the incentives are not there for them to partake in the scheme. While she cannot mandate them to get involved, what incentives are being put in place? What specifically is the Government doing to target those childcare providers who are saying they cannot do this, that they cannot operate within this framework and that they are out? What are we doing as a Government to get them back in? The Minister and I and all the TDs in our parties campaigned to achieve this goal.”
“My question relates to the promised reduction of childcare costs to €200 per child per month, which we all campaigned for and we much anticipate. Will the Minister give us an update on the progress towards achieving that goal?”
“That is still a major problem because it creates huge pressure on the system. Let us not accuse people of misinformation when they have in fact stated facts. Let us allow people have space to debate it in a reasoned way that allows them to actually look at the real issues.”
“Nobody gets to decide who lives next door to them but in the absence of information from the Department, other people fill that vacuum with misinformation. Speaking about misinformation, Fintan O'Toole namechecked me in his article too because I defended what the Tánaiste said. He suggested the Tánaiste conflated migration and immigration, notwithstanding his clarification later on in his comments. When he said there was too much migration into the country, there is justification for that comment. The reality is that 80% of people who come here and apply for international protection are found not to be entitled to it and are therefore the subject of a return to the country they came from. Migration is down 47% in 2025 compared to 2024. Still more than 16,000 people have come here this year.”
“I am trying to communicate it with the people in the area but by doing so, I am getting criticism from other people online. There is not a reasoned space where we can actually debate the real issues here and suggest what can be done. There are definitely legitimate criticisms that can be made of the Department and the manner in which it manages IPAS. For example, there is consistently an information vacuum. There seems to be a decision made within the Department that it will not trust members of communities in local areas. They do not actually trust them to give the information well in advance so they actually know what is happening in their area. People are entitled to know what is happening in their area. They are not entitled to veto it.”
“There was a twisting of what was said, followed by a suggestion that it was misinformation. He did that by suggesting the use of the word "migration" means "immigration". If he had actually listened to the entirety of what Deputy Harris said, the Tánaiste was at pains to point out that we need immigration. Throughout this debate, I have heard people talk about immigration, despite the fact this is entitled Statements on International Protection Processing and Enforcement. It is not about immigration but migration and people who come here seeking our protection. I am dealing with a situation where I have a huge IPAS centre on the border of my constituency that very much affects the people in my area. I am not saying that should not happen. I welcome it.”
“I welcome these statements. It is very important to have debate on these issues. However, it is also important when having this debate to have it in a reasonable, informed and safe space because it seems that anybody who engages in debate on this issue now is criticised by one side or the other as being extreme in one direction or the other. That is a really regrettable state of affairs. Some Members who have contributed to this debate so far have been quite unreasonable but rather than train my guns on them, I will specifically raise an issue that came up in The Irish Times this week. Columnist Fintan O'Toole criticised the Tánaiste for remarks he made outside Cabinet. Criticism of the remarks is fine but I found something in the paper of record that was unworthy of The Irish Times and unworthy of Fintan O'Toole.”
“Buying two inshore patrol vessels from the New Zealand navy and then not operating them is madness in the extreme. Let us make sure we address this and that we deliver for the Defence Forces and the people who serve in them. As I said, one of the ways we can do that, and I hope this is something that will come to fruition sooner rather than later, is to guarantee that Dún Laoghaire Harbour will be the base for the two inshore patrol vessels, namely, LÉ Aoibhinn and LÉ Gobnait . It makes sense to do so and I hope the Department will commit to doing it with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council.”
“I appreciate that we have increased spending on the military and on defence. We have increased the level of expenditure by 50% in the past six years. I recognise the new ambition set out in the budget. If we seriously expect people not to leave Óglaigh na hÉireann and go into other careers that might be more lucrative or, more importantly, if we expect people to join Óglaigh na hÉireann and commit themselves to serving this country, then we have to make it worth their while. We have to ensure that the facilities are there for them, that the terms and conditions are there for them, that the equipment is there for them and that we have enough people to serve on the vessels we have in order to ensure that those vessels can do the job they have to do. The vessels to which I refer do not come cheap.”
“I am glad to hear that work is continuing apace. I am glad to hear there is an agreement in principle. We have an opportunity here and one of the things we are lucky to have as a State is a team of committed people, not just in Óglaigh na hÉireann but specifically in the Naval Service. We do need to make it into a navy. We need to give it the equipment and the personnel necessary to operate as a navy, thereby allowing it to serve the people of this country and patrol our waters. More than most countries in the European Union, Ireland has an enormous exclusive economic zone relative to our territorial space. There is a real job to be done here. We have spent quite a lot of time discussing the level of ambition that was set out in the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. It is now time to put that into action.”
“We also need to provide the service with a base from which its vessels can operate. Dún Laoghaire Harbour seems to be the perfect place to do that. Will the Minister of State provide an update on where the negotiations stand or on whether a decision has been made in respect of this matter?”
“I absolutely support at least getting to level of ambition 2, referred to in the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, and going further. This has to be part of that. I know the Minister of State will agree that there are massive deficits in our lines of defence. One does not have to be gung ho on militarisation to understand that as a militarily non-aligned country, we have to have the capacity to defend ourselves. The function these ships can perform is a defensive one, but it also involves patrolling and carrying out customs, fisheries and drug trafficking enforcement. There is so much work to be done in that regard by the Irish Naval Service. Those in the service have enormous skill sets. We need to work to bulk these up in order to make sure that the service can do the job to which I refer.”
“From the point of view of the Naval Service in the first instance, this is the perfect match in view of the fact that the harbour is equipped to deal with such vessels such as those in question, particularly in light of its geographic location and the fact that it can facilitate easy access to the Irish Sea for the one or two patrol vessels to do the job they need to do. We know that the Naval Service needs to build up capacity in this regard. In tandem with this, there is also a real opportunity for Dún Laoghaire, which has in some respects lost its greater function, to be more than just a leisure harbour. It is wonderful at that, as I can attest, but it can do so much more for the Irish State and the community adjacent to it by facilitating the LÉ Aoibhinn and perhaps other vessels in berthing there and in patrolling the Irish Sea.”