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 14 of 20.
“However, we have a long way to go, and Ireland still has major problems as to how it views the LGBTQ+ community, how it deals with them, how it treats them and how they are seen by the law. I heard the speech the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, gave. It was incredibly moving and heartfelt. I congratulate her on it. The staff in my office upstairs were watching as well. We were all moved by it. It is important, however, to look at this through the lens of people who are not treated equally by the law. Despite the will being expressed by the people ten years ago, we had this rearguard action to row back on some things. That is notwithstanding the fact that love is love and that we made this acknowledgment in 2015.”
“I am very proud of what we have done as a country. That is not politics; that is people. When we look back ten years to what was done in this jurisdiction as regards the referendum on marriage equality, we have a basis on which to be proud for the fact that we recognised at that time that love is love and that equality of access to marriage was hugely important for everyone. I was part, as many people in these Houses were, of the campaign at that time, very much a civil society campaign as opposed to a political one. The friends I made during that campaign I still am friendly with and still work with. They are proud of what we did then; I am proud of what we did then. I am proud of the fact that we are for the most part progressive as regards Pride.”
“As a State and country, we have an obligation to ensure that is not just an idle hope and expectation but is backed up by proper regulation and protection. We hope that will be the case. As we look to the future, the way we ensure that these horrible things are not discussed in this Chamber in 20, 30, 40 or 100 years' time is to ensure those protections are in place to protect children. They should have been protected a generation or two generations ago and we must ensure children are protected into the future. All of that is the responsibility of the people who occupy this Chamber and the Government. It is an awesome responsibility, but is not beyond delivery. We can do it, but it comes with a package of measures that includes acknowledgement, compensation and future protection.”
“We have made gross mistakes in the past that have damaged families, households, children, adults, children who became adults, and all the other individuals involved. We must acknowledge that. The acknowledgment of that is not just about words but must also include compensation. It must be a tangible mark of the damage that was done and the fact that we as a State and nation accept responsibility for our part in failing to protect those children and to deal with those issues in a timely manner. This has been going on far too long. Just this morning I went with my daughter to what will be her first school to meet the teachers. We entrust our children to those custodians, educators and teachers. We expect our children to be protected. We expect them to be safe. As parents, we hope and expect that.”
“We can always do more to protect our children. We have acknowledged that in retrospect. I recently spoke at an event for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, and criticised another country's record in respect of a particular human rights issue. We in Ireland, despite the fact that we hold ourselves out as a reasonable country that respects the rule of law, is progressive and all those kinds of things, must also now acknowledge our human rights abuses in the past. This is part of it. We cannot stand on the international stage, criticise other countries and say they are not doing enough, that they should not do this or that, without also saying that we are not perfect.”
“We must ensure there is no alternative avenue for bodies that are responsible for terrible abuses - crimes, in no uncertain terms - for them to evade paying dues that would otherwise be covered by the Irish taxpayer. That must be absolutely clear and certain when redress schemes come. There can be no letting institutions off the hook, as happened in the past in a disgraceful way. When we look at this broad spectrum of issues, we, as a country, must first and foremost acknowledge that we have failed those children who were abused, those individuals who were the victims of sexual assault, violence and abuse. Crimes were committed against them and we must acknowledge that we failed them because the systems to protect them were not in place at the time. We like to think they are now, but they can always be improved.”
“The Minister was right when she said that work could continue in parallel with the work of the commission. I look forward to what Mr. Justice Michael MacGrath is going to do. He is a judge of impeccable credentials and I know he will bring an independence of thought to this that will be very welcome. While he is doing his work, there is no reason we cannot be progressing work on a redress scheme. Most importantly, if there are other bodies from which moneys can be recovered, punitively, in terms of recognition or whatever else it might be, as much to recognise the damage done as to save the taxpayer money, we need to ensure there is no loophole to allow those institutions to get out of it.”
“It has done so in a way that has further compounded the damage it did to children. The current students of Clonkeen College are denied playing pitches next to the school because that body has, in an effort to leverage the Department of Education, cut off the pitches next to the school and tried to barter with the Department on its financial liability. That can never be allowed to happen. It is compounding the damage done in the past by individuals who were members of orders. We now have a situation whereby that damage carries on to the current generation of children. Boys in Clonkeen College cannot use pitches next door to their school. They are denied a resource that should be available to them. When it comes to being answerable for these things, the State has ultimate liability and must put together a scheme to compensate those people.”
“When we look back at the history of the State, these appalling acts are not new to us. We knew they happened in other institutions. More have been exposed in recent years and we have seen another sad face of Ireland. When that happens, if an institution has responsibility or liability in that regard, we must be absolutely sure it cannot avoid it. We cannot have a repeat of what happened 23 years ago when religious institutions essentially were let out the door with a limited liability. I am thinking of my own constituency and the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, which runs the Christian Brothers' Clonkeen College. That school is just down the road from where I grew up. That body has frustrated the handing over of money to the Department of Education to cover compensation.”
“What is most important for those people who were abused within State or religious institutions, in religious schools or by religious orders, is that when it comes to paying the bill, they deserve financial compensation, and I agree with that, but that compensation is not there in any way to put them back to where they were. It cannot do that. It is, however, an incredibly important marker of the importance and extent of the damage done to them. One of the things we, as a society, recognise, whether we like it or not, is that when we put down financial compensation, it reflects the seriousness of a matter. That happens in our courts all the time. If we are not willing to back up inquiries, commissions, scoping exercises and all the rest with actual resources to acknowledge the harm done, it is all for nothing. Those things come together.”
“It is important to welcome the fact that the Minister took on board the recommendations of the scoping inquiry and has now enveloped those non-religious schools or those other schools that were outside the scope of the inquiry. They need to be part of it as well. That the Minister took those recommendations on board is positive. The only negative is that it potentially exposes the State to greater financial liability in terms of the damage that was done to people. I do not have a problem with that. In fact, I think it is our responsibility as a State to stand up and be counted in respect of what happened and to accept responsibility for it.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I also welcome the establishment of the commission by the Minister last week. It is appropriate but, at this juncture, it is worth looking back at how it came about. Reference has been made to those survivors who brought it about through their courage. Let us never underestimate the courage and determination it would have required for the victims who came forward in the "Blackrock Boys" episode of "Documentary on One" and all the people who came after them, encouraged by their bravery. They came forth, engaged with the scoping inquiry and told their stories so we got some idea of the enormous scope of this problem, how many were affected and suffered over many decades as a result of sexual abuse in schools.”
“If we are talking about the issue at the heart of this, which is the treatment of those people who through no fault of their own and through no fault of their parents find themselves massively disadvantaged, injured, disabled as a result of that drug and the inaction of this State, the very least we can do is those four things I pointed out: apologise; acknowledge; cover their medical needs; and compensate them for the injury caused to them. We would do it in any other situation but for some reason the State has dragged its heels. The fundamental crux of this is the treatment of those survivors of thalidomide is fundamentally wrong and shameful and is a stain on the recent history of this State that we cannot get over that and acknowledge the justice of the issue that has to be dealt with.”
“These are people who were injured through the inaction of this State and that has never been acknowledged despite the letter that was written by my party leader, the Minister of State's party leader and the leader of the Green Party a year ago. That is not actually an acknowledgement of the fault of the State. It is not an apology. It is an apology for what they are going through, which states that the Government regrets the position they are in. I understand the restrictions that are there. I have been critical before of the manner in which the State has met the legal case against them. That is one thing but there is a basic justice to this that has never been met. There is no apology, acknowledgment, full suite of treatment and no compensation. Those are all absent.”
“I thank the Minister of State. I acknowledge the reason for the absence of the Minister for State, Deputy Naughton. I applaud her for acknowledging the massacre in Srebrenica. I also understand what the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, said; I know he is reading a response on her behalf. The statement that the Government is committed to helping the survivors of thalidomide is all very well but the point I am making is it is taking too long. The process is there and the process is fine but what we have not had is a proper acknowledgement. We have not had a proper apology. We do not have cover. Talking about enhanced services for them is all very well but that is the very minimum we can do.”
“Really, what I want to raise this evening is how unacceptable it is that, unfortunately, once again, this State finds itself in a position where vulnerable people who have been disadvantaged and injured by the failure to act by this State are once again being treated really badly and appallingly. The time has come to take action and acknowledge that.”
“The process is under way, let it take its course, but the treatment of thalidomide survivors by allowing the matter to go on for as long as it has is a very poor reflection on the State and the liability the State has. I have been very clear on this; there was a failure by the State in the 1960s for a period of over six months to clearly indicate that this drug should be withdrawn from the market. The information was there; the action was not taken. I am not here to go into the liability issue of it. There is a case in being, although that in and of itself has been dragged on to the detriment of those people who are involved in the case.”
“The survivors themselves are in their mid to late 60s and more importantly, their mothers, most of whom have passed away, are obviously much older than that or are at an advanced age. In fact, I think there are probably only five of them still living, and some of them have passed away in the last year as well. Those women who took the drug thalidomide without any foresight or knowledge as to the effect it might have on the foetus of the infant they were carrying bore throughout their lives huge guilt with regard to what happened to their children in utero . It is desperately unfair on those women who took the drug, again, through no fault of their own and who bore that burden throughout their lives. Most of them have died. The glacial pace with which the State is actually addressing this problem is shameful.”
“This week marks the passage of one year since the leaders of the three parties in the previous Government wrote to the survivors of thalidomide and set out what I respectfully suggest was not, in fact, an apology or an acknowledgement, but really a communication in respect of some supports that have been put in place for them. It is also a number of weeks since Jacqui Browne, a fearless campaigner and an individual of great stock herself, passed away aged 64. She was a thalidomide survivor. As we move through this, I understand those who say that now is not the time to discuss it and that there is a process under way; I understand that. The difficulty I have is, if not now, when? This has been going on now for more than 60 years.”
“I am also conscious that this is a sensitive time and I have been encouraged to withdraw this matter this evening for that reason. Let me say very clearly why I have not withdrawn it. First, there is a process under way, which is being led by the retired High Court judge, Mr. Justice Gilligan, a man for whom I have enormous respect, and I do not want in any way to interfere with that process. It is important that continues and that it is completed in whatever way he sees fit and to the conclusion that is appropriate. The openness and transparency that must come with that should never be interfered with. That is not really why I am raising this issue. I am raising this issue because this is an important anniversary.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht bheith anseo déanach ar an Déardaoin chun déileáil leis an gceist seo. This is an issue I have raised on a number of occasions, that is, the attitude of the State towards the treatment of survivors of thalidomide. The Minister of State will be aware that thalidomide was a drug that was used in the early 1960s by women in relation to morning sickness but what is important is that it has a hugely adverse effect on their subsequent children. We have fewer than 40 survivors of thalidomide in Ireland today. These are people who have lived throughout their lives with debilitating issues as a result of the fact that they survived thalidomide while their mothers were pregnant. I am conscious that this is a sensitive issue.”
“I put on record my admiration for the fact that the Tánaiste has put together a coalition among our European colleagues. It is no small feat. Given what he has said and given the inconsistency of the strength of action that Europe has taken on Russia, and the lack of action taken regarding Israel, how can we continue to have faith in the operation of the rule of law if this is not an almost automatic thing? Where the breach has been found, how is unanimity still required when, on the face of it, there are clear breaches that render the agreement inoperable?”
“Question No. 73 relates to the work the Tánaiste is doing relating to the EU-Israel association agreement. I respect hugely the work that we have done in the European Union, that the Tánaiste has done in the European Union and the respect for the rule of law. Given that there is ample evidence to suggest that Israel is outside the terms of that agreement and that it is not respecting the rule of law or humanitarian law, evidence of which we see time after time, as well as the advisory opinion of the ICJ, can we persuade our colleagues in the European Union to take action on the EU-Israel association agreement and actually hold Israel to account with regard to human rights clauses in that agreement?”
“Can the Minister of State confirm that it is in fact a Russian ship for the purposes of sanctions? It is not allowed to dock in Irish ports. It has now left Irish waters, but not before it forced itself into Clogherhead in County Louth to resupply, as I understand it, under a false description of an emergency it had had.”
“Today, I and other members of the Ukraine parliamentary friendship group met with the ambassador, H.E. Larysa Gerasko. One of the concerns she expressed was that she has heard that Ukraine is no longer a priority for Ireland. I have never heard any such statement from any member of my party, of the Minister of State's party or of Government. Will the Minister confirm that Ukraine remains a priority for Ireland as regards the aid and support we can give to help Ukraine resist the Russian invasion? Following on from that, I ask the Minister of State about the ship, the Shtandart , that was anchored off the coast of my constituency in Killiney Bay this week. It sailed under a Russian flag at the time of the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, subsequently took on the flag of the Cook Islands and is now claiming it is not a Russian ship.”
“Let us recognise the work they are doing. At a European level let us say that we want to welcome these countries in, we want to make progress down that road, to help them to reach the Copenhagen criteria and when they have done that, to make them full members of the EU on an equal footing with Ireland, Germany and all of the other countries that have signed up to those common ideals that are so valuable to us in Ireland. Somehow, in this Chamber, we still have a few Deputies who will do them down for the sake of scoring their own political points. That is not the way to do it and it is far too easy to say that it is Europe's fault. We are Europe. We make those decisions as well. Let us stand by them and recognise the value they have for the people we represent in this Chamber.”
“That needs to be respected too but the danger with countries like North Macedonia and, indeed, Montenegro, which is probably the readiest of the accession countries, is that if they do not see progress down the road of membership then the people who are opposed to EU membership within those countries will start to point to the EU and say, "Look, we told you. They do not really want us as members. They just want us to keep jumping through hoops and every time we jump through the next hoop, they will produce another one.". That is not what is happening but there is a danger that we allow that to be the narrative within those countries. Let us recognise the readiness of countries like North Macedonia and Montenegro, the progress made by countries like Albania, and the distance still to be travelled by Bosnia-Herzegovina.”
“However, I do not think it reflects the attitude of Georgian people, the population of Georgia who have for a long time been progressing towards EU membership but have now been set back by that. Türkiye also has a number of issues that it has to address before it will be ready to meet the Copenhagen criteria. North Macedonia, on the other hand, has taken huge steps forward. It changed its name and flag after it ceased to be known as a former Yugoslav republic. It is now being asked by the EU to make constitutional changes as well. This week I met with the Bulgarian ambassador to Ireland who has specifically spoken about the Bulgarian minority in North Macedonia.”
“Moldova is wedged on the edge of Europe and on the edge of Ukraine and is in a very vulnerable position. The ambassador here, Ms Jana Costachi, will have spoken to many Deputies in this House, I am sure. She is constantly talking to people here about that membership process. Moldova is not alone in that regard. There are countries like Serbia, for example, that are probably further away from being ready for membership. Georgia unfortunately has taken a turn in the opposite direction through the dominance of Georgian Dream in Georgian internal politics. The approach to opposition politicians in Georgia is deeply regrettable and sinister and is something the EU needs to keep an eye on and address.”
“We know that European enlargement is better for the European Union. We are better if we are bigger and have more members. As a bloc, we are much stronger. We know that the countries coming into the European Union are better off when they are inside the European Union because they sign up to adherence to the rule of law and the other instruments that form part of the Copenhagen criteria which make the citizens of those countries better off. If enlargement of European Union is better for those of us who are in and better for those who are coming in, let us make sure it progresses because it feels very much like it has stalled at the moment. Regarding Moldova, I acknowledge that there was a bilateral summit between Moldova and the European Union, the first such summit, which is very welcome.”
“I have raised this issue on a couple of occasions and I do not do so in any way to undermine the process of enlargement and the process by which countries must meet the Copenhagen criteria before they become members of the European Union. I also do not say it with a view to saying that countries should not have the right to veto a new member, but I do not think any member state should have the right to veto the process through which another country goes to apply for membership and to start the process of joining. These are issues I have raised at COSAC, which is the European committee where the chairs of the European Union affairs committees of each member state come together twice during each Presidency. I spoke on this in Warsaw last month and in Copenhagen last week. These are important issues.”
“Perhaps the most significant thing when we talk about the European Council statements is that our leader sat at that table, equal to the German Chancellor and equal to the leaders of France, Spain and Italy, which are much bigger countries by population and economy but we have an equal place. When the Deputy says, "Go and get stuffed", he is telling our country to go and get stuffed. He should have a little bit of sense and decorum in relation to what we are actually trying to do with that legislation. What I actually wanted to talk about are the items on the agenda referring to European enlargement, which is hugely important. It is something that has stalled to a large extent.”
“We have a Commissioner at the Commission table. We are part of that decision-making process. We have benefited from the fact that collectively as the European Union, we have handed down legislation in this country that means we have good health and safety, good employment rights and good employment benefits. Therefore, if we tell the European Union to go and get stuffed, we are telling ourselves to go and get stuffed because we sit around the table in Brussels as much as any other country. The big change for us in joining the European Union in 1973 was that we went from being in the shadow of a former colonial power to being an equal party at the table.”
“As the Deputy has said, we are outside the norms of the European Union because other European Union states actually have the courage to stand up and say they want to protect people who are being put down by people who think that they can use their characteristics to operate against them. That is what that is about. Let us not misrepresent what is actually there. Let us also recognise that when we look at the progress of European legislation, workers in this country are better off, safer and have better conditions because of European law. We did not tell the European Union to "get stuffed" on that stuff either. The reality is we have benefited time after time from the European Union. By the way, we cannot speak about it as if we are not part of it because our Ministers sit at the European Council table.”
“-----he believes people should be able to say whatever they want, as is the case in America. He believes people can say whatever they want and it does not matter if they do down someone's good name or incite hatred against them. What an absolute nonsense stance to take. He should be responsible and recognise that no right in our Constitution or any other international instrument we are part of is absolute. Every right comes with a responsibility. While people have free speech, they cannot use that right to do down a group because they have particular characteristics. That was what that law was about. He is quite right that it did not pass in full. It certainly did not pass to the extent I wanted to pass in the previous Oireachtas. I welcome that the Taoiseach has said the Government will work to reintroduce such legislation.”
“-----race and religion. I do not want people like that to be put upon by other people because they choose to speak out against them. The Deputy speaks as if there are no restrictions on free speech, as if it is an absolute thing. Presumably he would throw out the defamation laws as well because-----”
“The Deputy can read the comments I made on this in the Seanad. As the Fine Gael justice spokesperson in the Seanad, I spoke for a very long time on many occasions on that Bill. There is no doubt whatsoever about my views on this. The Deputy speaks as if there are no restrictions on free speech and suggests we should tell the EU to go and get stuffed. What kind of a comment is that to make? We were introducing legislation that would protect minorities that are put upon by people because of what they are, not who they are, because of characteristics like their sexual orientation,-----”
“I will shortly talk about EU expansionism but I feel I need to address some of the comments Deputy Lawless has made about hate speech legislation. I am very much an advocate for free speech. Quite apart from the fact that it is a right under the European Convention, it is a constitutional right in this jurisdiction which must be respected and maintained. However, having a law that says that people cannot use their power and their right to speak freely to incite hatred against certain groups is not a restriction of free speech that is unwarranted. Listening to Deputy Lawless, one would think that-----”
“It increases the bureaucracy at local level. It increases the work that has to be done in the one council meeting per month. It reduces the efficiency of decisions being made at local level by councillors elected by their local communities. We need to move to empower those people and reflect the fact we should be devolving those decisions to a different committee. At a European level, we talk about subsidiarity all the time and making decisions more and more localised and yet we ignore that principle in the context of Irish law. We are taking powers away from the local level and centralising them into local government. There was an opportunity with those amendments to change that. Unfortunately, that has been rejected.”
“The hardest working members of our democracy have little power and less and less power because of measures exactly like this Bill that take it away from them and give them to faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats at local level. That is a regressive and regrettable move. We see it happening again in the rejection of the amendment I put down to this Bill. The other amendment I put down again relates to local authorities and the provision of municipal districts in the four Dublin local authorities, Galway City Council and Cork City Council. As there were not town councils in those local authorities, when the Local Government Reform Act 2014 came into effect, they did not get municipal districts with the result that all decisions have to be made at council level and cannot be made at what are called area committees in those local authorities.”
“Obviously, nobody is opposed to that. The difficulty I have is that it is done without recourse to the elected officials at local level. There are a series of measures in the section. It is a reserved function for the councillors to decide certain things in terms of putting the matter out to public consultation and things like that but the final decision on whether to implement the road changes is made by officials. I am blue in the face from saying in this House and in the Seanad, where I was for the past five years, that officials will never knock on any constituent's door and ask them what they think. That is what councillors do.”
“The pillar banks and the financiers of developments are not giving them the finance they need or are not doing it in a way that allows them to get projects off the ground. That is the problem. If finance is the problem, let us set up a State vehicle to help them do that. The answer is not simply to make changes in the minimum standards to make building more profitable. That cannot be the right answer. Let us solve the finance problem instead of making small apartments smaller, because that is what we are proposing to do. I make reference to two amendments I put down to this Bill that have, I am sorry to say, been ruled out of order. I think they are relevant because one of them refers to an amendment to section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1994. That is a provision which allows local authorities to implement road safety measures.”
“There are a number of solutions, which I have set out in this House before, to deal with not just reforming that system but the separation of water and the reuse of water in a domestic context. I make reference to the proposal that went before Cabinet today to reduce the minimum size for small dwellings. I do not accept that is the solution to our housing problem. I do not accept that making small apartments smaller somehow makes it easier to deliver housing in this country. What you are actually doing is making the living conditions of people in small dwellings - I lived in one for many years - worse and it is not answer. From speaking to people in my constituency, including people involved in the building trade, I understand the problem is getting finance.”
“That goes down to a pumping station in the West Pier, which is pumped in an under sea-floor pipe into the Poolbeg station, where it is treated. The problem is that if you have a huge volume of water going in after a lot of rain, the pumping station is rapidly inundated and cannot cope with the capacity. It has an 80,000 litre attenuation tank, which takes the overflow but what often happens is that the overflow from the overflow tank ends up in Dublin Bay, where people swim and fish and which is used for recreational purposes. It is unacceptable that we cannot stop that from happening in the 21st century. It is something we need to address as a matter of urgency.”
“Instead of taking a section that is to be amended and restating it in this Bill, as being the proposed new law, which is what we should do and which would be legible for somebody coming to the Bill on its own, we have an amendment to the principal Act, which makes it largely illegible for ordinary people. That is a more general point. I make two other points on the issues at the heart of housing. The first is about water and I make this comment specifically in the context of my own area of Dún Laoghaire. Generally, south Dublin has a major problem with water capacity and sewerage capacity. It results in a number of issues with water quality in Dublin Bay because when you have a heavy rainfall event, the run-off from roads, streets and footpaths goes into the same system that the sewerage from domestic dwellings goes into.”
“I want to make a number of points about this Bill. It is regrettable we are now spending Dáil time revisiting this issue, given the amount of time that was spent on the principal Act that is being amended by this Bill. It is a terrible waste of time that we find ourselves back here debating issues again that should really have formed part of the last Bill. I am not entirely sure I accept the notion it could not have been done at that time. Another point I want to make about this Bill is that it is not legible for ordinary people. I make this point all the time, particularly about amending legislation. There is a body of work in this Bill that cannot be read without reference to the Act we passed last year and without reference to other Acts.”
“Let us ensure before we embark on legislation that it is going to be robust enough to withstand constitutional challenge, particularly in the context of those members of the independent review group who gave that minority opinion which should give us all pause for thought. Let us also, in the context of any legislation the Minister brings forward, envisage a situation where a decision to proceed with a Special Criminal Court trial is not that of the prosecution, but that of the courts and is done in an independent way to allow us divorce the DPP from any suggestion she is making that decision for the wrong reason. I am happy to support the motions and I look forward to them passing.”
“I appreciate and recognise what the Minister said about his desire to put this on a permanent footing. I ask that we step lightly in that regard. I think there is a constitutional context that is concerning. I recognise the ongoing need for a non-jury court in the Special Criminal Court and I recognise there remain elements within the State, whether from paramilitarism or organised crime or whatever threat one might identify. I recognise those elements are there and I recognise the need for us to provide a solution to deal with them into the future. Let us look at the constitutional context.”
“We have a Judiciary that, notwithstanding pressures in public opinion, commentary in the media and online, and public pressure, still makes those tough decisions to uphold the rule of law in this country and to uphold the principles that we hold dear to have a criminal justice system that is functional, fair and just, with the principle of being innocent until proven guilty and the standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt. They are difficult principles but they are principles that ensure that when you go on trial in Ireland, you can be confident that you will get a fair trial in accordance with law, not in the court of public opinion but before a court of law that respects the constitutional principles and the legal requirements that are set down. That does happen.”
“In fact, we should be thinking of what, if were in that position and falsely accused, or if our brother, sister, son, daughter, mother or father was in that position and falsely accused, we would we expect them to get. We would expect them to get justice. We would expect them to get a fair hearing from the court. We would expect the court to apply the law without fear or favour, which is what we ask juries to do every day across the length and breadth of this country and which they do with distinction. The point I really want to make is that the Special Criminal Court has also been shown to do that. That is something in which we can have significant pride as a nation.”