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 15 of 20.
“We should recognise how difficult it is for them to make those decisions and the fact that they have made them. In all criminal cases, it is so often the case that we look in and hear the allegation that is made, and there may be media commentary and online commentary about that, and we think that that person must be guilty. Of course, that is not the correct starting point for any assessment of a criminal trial. We talk about innocence until proven guilty and about the burden of proof being on the prosecution. We talk about the standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt, but we often look at accused persons and assume they have done something wrong or that they are guilty.”
“We say that people are innocent until proven guilty but the reality is that in public opinion, the view is frequently that people accused before the courts must have done something wrong. It is sometimes difficult for courts, particularly when it is judges rather than anonymous jurors, to mark out the fact that there is a gap in the prosecution case or the evidence and that there is the reasonable doubt we so often talk about, which should lead to an acquittal. For three judges to make that decision is very difficult. We should also recognise with some gratitude those judges who have made those decisions to uphold the validity and the integrity of the Special Criminal Court and to show that it operates in a way that is fair and just.”
“Looking at the operation of the Special Criminal Court, one can point to any number of examples where a judicial panel in the Special Criminal Court, sitting without a jury, has made the tough decision that is unpopular in the public mind, because people for obvious reasons see things through a particular lens when they are looking at these cases, that the proof of the prosecution is insufficient in a case or that there is an evidential issue, procedural issue or whatever it might be that has led to the acquittal of the person before the court. That is incredibly important. If a court had a 100% conviction record, we would have to ask how on earth that court was operating justly, properly and in accordance with law.”
“In recent years, we have had decisions to acquit people in the Special Criminal Court which have flown in the face of public opinion, for which the individual judges have received great opprobrium from the public, inappropriately in my view, because when three judges sit down in the Special Criminal Court, their job is to act as judge and jury. Their job is to, in whatever way they can, bring to that particular trial the independence of thought that we expect from an ordinary citizen who goes in to serve on a jury. We have seen them do that, in fairness to them, in a way that is difficult for a single judge to do in the course of a criminal trial. It is a duty that weighs heavily on those who operate in summary courts like the District Court.”
“Rather than interfere with that process, because decisions made by the DPP in this space can be very sensitive, that application could be made ex parte and in camera to avoid any complication in that regard. Regarding the operation of the court, although I have reluctance about the appropriateness of it and think it is regrettable that we do need it, I recognise the need for it, but I also think the Special Criminal Court has served us incredibly well. I have talked about the independence of the DPP and the fact that she makes decisions without fear of public opinion or media commentary. In fairness to the judges of the Special Criminal Court, they have done the same thing.”
“There should be an ex parte , in camera application before a High Court judge for the DPP to apply for a particular case to come before the Special Criminal Court, thereby removing any suggestion that she is partisan in making that decision or that she has made it for any reason other than the right reasons. As I say, there is no case I can point to where I think she has not made it for the right reasons, but we should be separating her from any suggestion that she might not be doing that. My proposal regarding these motions and any legislation that the Minister might bring forward is that, in future, rather than allowing the DPP alone to decide if a case is appropriate for the Special Criminal Court, it should in fact be decided by an independent arbiter. I suggest a High Court judge as the appropriate person.”
“I make these remarks in full recognition of the independence of the DPP and in awe of the quality of the service that her office delivers, but if she is also the prosecution, she is therefore not a disinterested party. If she is the only person making the decision about whether a case goes to the Special Criminal Court, that is problematic from the point of view of the optics of it, because she is an interested party and is making a decision about which court deals with the case and more importantly whether it is a case that is appropriate for a non-jury court or not. I think that decision-making process should be separated from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
“The job of prosecution counsel is to get that case to the jury and to allow the jury to make its decision in the appropriate way, rather than to achieve a conviction, which is something you see in other jurisdictions and which undoubtedly results in miscarriages of justice, something we do not have a major problem with in this jurisdiction. We have a fair and functional criminal justice system, which is in large part down to the fact that the DPP is not going into court looking for a scalp. She is not going to court trying to get the conviction. She does not have to run for election on the basis of her conviction record or nonsensical things like that which should have no bearing on a criminal justice system.”
“The problem with the DPP making the decision about who goes to the Special Criminal Court is that she is not a disinterested party. The DPP acts on behalf of the people of Ireland to prosecute people who are suspected of particular offences, but she is the prosecution in that regard, although we should note the excellence of our system insofar as when a prosecutor goes into court in this country, he or she, on behalf of the DPP, is not seeking a conviction but to present the evidence in a fair and lawful manner before the court and jury to allow the jury to make a decision.”
“It separates that prosecution of offences role from the Attorney General and into a dedicated office, which has retained jealously its political independence from any office, officer, party or political entity. I admire the work that the DPP has done over three generations in this country to take independent views, without fear or favour regarding public opinion, media commentary or anything like that, to do what it feels is the right thing to do about who is prosecuted for which offences, in which court and so on. She and the staff in the DPP's office exercise their duties with great skill, commitment and independence, which is important. However, one thing that I know must occupy such an independent office is the perception that it is not doing that independently.”
“The other difficulty I have, as I have said on a number of occasions in the Seanad in the course of these motions, relates to the manner in which the decision to try a person in the Special Criminal Court operates. At the moment that decision is made uniquely by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who makes the decision as to whether a case is appropriate to go before the Special Criminal Court, in her opinion. I preface these remarks by saying that I have absolutely no doubt about the independence of the operation of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Since the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974, we have had, in the office of the DPP, a function that is operated independently of any politics.”
“I applaud the fact that we are required every year, at least in name, to approve the continuation of the operation of the Special Criminal Court. There is something unsatisfying about this process, insofar as we have to accept what the Minister says about the continued operation of the court. We have to accept the reports that come here that deem its continuation to be necessary. I see that but there is still something unsatisfying about this process. Notwithstanding that, the fact that we come together on at least an annual basis to assess this issue and have our say as the democratic representatives of the people is an important step that would be removed if we were to put the court on a permanent footing.”
“I think its phrasing is that putting the Special Criminal Court on a permanent footing would be “constitutionally inappropriate”, a term that was very carefully chosen without making an outright statement on constitutionality. We are aware that the Supreme Court has deemed the operation of the Special Criminal Court to be constitutional, although I recognise that my colleague Brendan Grehan, SC, has suggested that putting it on a permanent footing might require constitutional approval from the people of Ireland. Either way, I am slightly uncomfortable with the notion that we would put the Special Criminal Court on a permanent footing. The fact is that it is still treated as something exceptional, even though I know it would remain exceptional under the Minister's legislative proposals.”
“Jurors will inevitably spend a significant portion of the time they serve on a jury sitting in rooms waiting to be called into the courtroom. It is unacceptable. It is disrespectful to the jurors and does not recognise the importance of their role. More important in the context of these motions, we do need a non-jury court, as the Minister set out. We are aware that there are subversive elements within the State who would use the presence of an ordinary jury to prevent the just course of a criminal trial, be they terrorists, paramilitaries, organised criminals or people who decide they want to intervene in the criminal justice system and corrupt its proper operation. We know that certain cases mean non-jury courts are required. I will make a couple of comments on that. The Minister referred to the independent report.”
“However, the reality is that people who answer jury summonses and go to courthouses the length and breadth of Ireland to serve on juries will have an uncomfortable week or weeks ahead. If they are not selected, they may spend the whole week hanging around a courthouse waiting to be called, or not, as the case may be. If they are selected, depending on how long the trial takes, they may spend a lot of time out of the courtroom during legal argument. Although I am aware that efforts were made through the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to avoid that and provide for hearings in advance of the main trial to allow issues to be resolved so juries would not be sitting in the jury room for long periods, it still happens.”
“The benefit of ordinary citizens serving on juries is enormously important, if not vital, to the operation of our criminal justice system. We should recognise the importance of it also from the point of view of delivering just results in criminal trials. Having said that, I recognise that this is not always possible. We should use this debate to recognise the jury experience is not necessarily a good one. We still have some work to do to improve the experience that citizens have when they go to serve on a jury. Members of the Judiciary are always at pains to point out to any juror who serves on a jury just how important his or her role is in allowing the trial to take place and giving it the citizens' imprimatur of justice.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht cuid dá ama a thabhairt dom. I am supporting the motions although I do not do so willingly. I recognise that the Special Criminal Court and the non-jury court that exists under the Acts to which the Minister has referred and Article 38.4 of the Constitution are a necessary evil rather than good things in and of themselves. As somebody who has practised criminal law for a long time, I recognise the value of juries and the importance of distinguishing their role from that of a judge. A judge, being a former lawyer who may be somewhat jaded by the system and who will have seen it all before, does not bring to the criminal process the fresh, uncontaminated view of an ordinary citizen serving on a jury.”
“I hope everybody in this Chamber reaches the age where they will need to rely on somebody and will need to rely on the care of people, so many of whom do such great work. I know, having dealt with carers in nursing homes, that they love the care they give to the elderly. We need to make sure every one of them does that, and where they do not and where they fall short, that there are consequences and, most importantly, action.”
“It was not until the family initiated legal action that they were listened to and interventions were taken by the staff in the care facility. The care facility failed to ensure he received proper food and water or that he consumed it. The staff failed to engage with the family about their father's health. The care facility failed to adequately deal with the physiotherapy needs of their father as well. There were consistent patterns of neglect and a lack of care. Even in his final days, the family struggled to get palliative care and painkillers to help their father. This is just one case, one constituent who emailed me. There are others and I have just chosen this from a number of emails. What this brings home, and I know the Minister of State is alive to this and understands it, is the seriousness of this issue.”
“She talks about the experience that he had towards the end of his life in that nursing home. What she has reported to me is quite shocking. She and her family were frequently ignored when they raised concerns with the nursing home about their father's well-being. He had multiple urinary tract infections that went undiagnosed and untreated, meaning he was in significant discomfort, as well as the health risks this posed. His medication was not properly administered. He suffered from bed sores that were left untreated and not dealt with and we can imagine the pain and discomfort he would be in, lying in a bed and unable to help himself. The family raised concerns with the home and were repeatedly ignored.”
“What we saw in the "RTÉ Investigates" programme was very upsetting. The notion that anybody entrusts the loved one in their family, who is arguably at the most vulnerable stage in their life, to a home and they are treated in the way we saw them being treated is frightening as much as it is upsetting. The reality is that I talk to people every day who are in a situation where an elderly parent or elderly relative needs the kind of care that means they have to go into a nursing home. We are asking them to put their trust in a system that is clearly deficient in terms of the safeguards and checks in place. I have been contacted by a constituent and I want to read what she said about her father's experience, albeit in a nursing home in County Wicklow, not in my constituency, but she lives in my constituency, in Dún Laoghaire.”
“No matter what the judge advocate says in the Court of Justice of the European Union, and no matter the finding of the court in the autumn, what do we do if Hungary still thumbs its nose? What do we do if we withdraw the funding, criticise them and decry what we all know to be wrong, and they still do nothing about it? Where is the rule of law toolbox if we cannot use it to actually effect change and enforce the law we have all signed up to as part of the acquis communautaire and as part of the various treaties of fundamental rights and of functioning of the European Union? What do we do if they still say and do nothing?”
“I refer to the cynical manner in which the Hungarian Government seeks to equate child protection with what it calls its anti-paedophilia law, with people who simply want to live life in the way they want to live it. That cynical conflagration of two totally unrelated issues is a major problem. It is disturbingly cynical in the message it sends out. As Chair of the European affairs committee, this is an issue we want to look at. We are hoping to do so next week. Here is the real question. We have joined the case and stated our case. We talk about the rule of law toolbox. We know funding is being restricted from Hungary and that clear messages are being sent from the Commission and many European Union states. It has not changed the facts.”
“I thank the Minister of State. I recognise the truth of much of what he said, particularly in terms of Ireland's support for the rule of law toolbox. That is brings us to the root of this issue. I have raised the matter with the Tánaiste. I am aware of his strong stance on this and I respect that hugely. I am also aware that Ireland has a chequered history with dealing with the freedom of individuals, particularly members of the LGBTQI+ community. There is an extent to which we are people in glasshouses casting stones. However, I also recognise the fact that we have made huge progress within my lifetime on this issue, particularly in the past ten years since the referendum in 2015.”
“I would say that the same value with membership of the European Union could be ascribed to Hungary and yet, whatever it is, 157 out of 158 MPs in 2021 voted for this law. What is it that they do not see? How can we make them see it? How can we share with them the benefits of being part of a pluralist society that respects diversity, difference of opinions and difference in perspectives on things like sexuality? If we stand back and allow it to happen, then what is the point of being part of a European Union that lays down those fundamental rights for all European citizens, not just those whose governments choose to give them to them, but all European citizens, irrespective of what country they live in or under which government they live? Let us be clear in our voice on this and tell us what we can do to make this different.”
“If we are seriously to respect the rights that are set down in the Treaty on European Union and if we embody them in Ireland, we need first to assure ourselves we are doing everything we can to make it clear that we oppose this and make that clear on the international stage and at European level, at European Council meetings and in all our dealings with the Hungarian Government; and second, we actually need to take concrete action. The Minister of State should tell me what Ireland is doing and what the Commission is doing in real terms to tackle what flies in the face of fundamental principles that we associate with being part of the European Union. We know that in Ireland we have huge support for membership of the European Union. Well over 80% people in this country recognise the value it has had for us.”
“Ireland also supports that goal but it does appear to have allowed them to be stigmatised during the past four years because those actions have not been taken. It has been condemned by 17 member states, including Ireland, within the European Union. I want to put on record my support for the work the Irish Embassy in Budapest does to support the rights of LGBTQI+ people and the rights of the Pride parade in Budapest, which I understand will take place next week but which is technically against the law now in Hungary. Those efforts essentially are being ignored by Fidesz, by Viktor Orbán and the Hungarian Government.”
“While I am aware that the Commission has massively curtailed payments to Hungary, amounting to billions of euro during that time, the law has gone pretty much unabated since then. As a result, ordinary people who are members of the LGBTQI+ community in Hungary are massively curtailed, not just in their activities, their freedom of expression and their right to play a full part in society in Hungary but they are also in genuine fear of falling foul of this law and finding themselves at the end of a criminal conviction or a criminal prosecution in any event. The European Commission stated in a tweet in 2021 announcing that it was taking the legal action against Hungary, that Europe will never allow parts of our society to be stigmatised. That is a laudable aim and I support that.”
“As the Minister of State will know, on 23 June 2021 the Hungarian Parliament passed a law significantly curbing the rights of members of the LGBTQI+ community in Hungary. As it came into effect on 1 July 2021, next week that law will have been passed for four years. It is hugely problematic from the point of view of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. It clearly curbs fundamental rights that are set out there, not least freedom of expression, equality, non-discrimination, pluralism and tolerance. As a result the European Commission took a legal action against the Hungarian Government in July 2021, that is, four years ago. It is hard to discern what exactly has happened in that regard since then.”
“Appreciating the work that has been done, the unprecedented investment the Minister mentioned, the progress we have made and the progress we have yet to make, will the Minister assure parents in Dún Laoghaire, in Dublin and in Ireland that if their children are in childcare, those facilities will, to the greatest extent possible, continue to provide services? The Minister appreciates the need for sufficiency of service and the need to support these childcare providers.”
“I note the 226 net increase, which is a significant figure and certainly to be praised. In the context of places like where I live in Dún Laoghaire, where the cost of property and rent is much higher, is the Department doing anything to specifically safeguard urban childcare environments where the living costs for people working in those centres might be higher? We know teachers are leaving the education sector because they cannot live in Dublin and are going elsewhere. The same is true of childcare facilities. Is the Minister aware of childcare facilities that are closing? Is her Department doing any analysis of why that might be? Are steps being taken to safeguard the facilities against this happening?”
“I live in Honeypark in Dún Laoghaire, an area with a lot of young families. I note a site earmarked for a childcare facility has now been advertised for sale in the commercial property pages of The Irish Times . Are we ensuring there will be sufficient places, continued delivery of childcare facilities and places for the children who need them?”
“I acknowledge the progress that has been made and I do not want to belittle that progress. Fees of less than €200 per week are a significant step forward. I appreciate the budgetary commitment I hope we will see later this year in that regard to ensure we continue on that trajectory. I also acknowledge that it is a commitment over the lifetime of this Government, but I know the Minister will appreciate that, the sooner we can do it, the better for everybody involved. The Minister mentioned sufficient places. That has to be the dual threat that comes with this. Can we put in place a policy to ensure childcare facilities are not closing down? A service in the Presbyterian church on York Road in Dún Laoghaire closed without explanation recently, which has caused massive upset for the parents involved.”
“Rather than waiting for the lifetime of the Government, can we do something more quickly to deliver for parents? Parents are crying out for our commitment to be delivered and we all know how important it is.”
“I thank the Minister for the update. I appreciate the progress that is being made on the fee caps. Is there a timeline for when we can achieve that? I know the commitment is within the lifetime of the Government, but the sooner we can do this the better. As I am sure is the case for the Minister, parents contact me constantly to tell me they are being forced into making unpalatable financial decisions about work and what they do with their children. Many families cannot go to work because it is simply not financially viable for them to do so. We need to ensure that is never the case. These are important life decisions that people should be able to make freely. I know the Minister will agree with this. If this is not done by the end of next year, for example, will we be in a position to report serious progress at that stage?”
“I am sure the Minister campaigned, as I did, on the issue of childcare during the election campaign. It has remained a live issue since. We are committed to reducing that cost gradually. It is a commitment in the programme for Government. Will the Minister update us on the progress on that policy?”
“When we are pushing those local authorities to build more social houses and acquire social houses - an area in which Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown has performed well - they now get a further smack in the face in this Bill regarding their outgoings for local property tax. Could we not look at local property tax with a more reasoned, fairer eye that actually reflects the ability of the people involved to pay those taxes?”
“It does not reflect the disparity in property prices throughout the country. It does not acknowledge the fact that if you are a renter or local authority tenant, you have no liability. Beyond that, a local authority such as Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council also has to pay the local property tax for social housing in the county. In addition to the individual burdens being placed on individual households, the Bill will also further disadvantage local authorities such as Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council because they will have a bigger local property tax bill to pay with regard to their social houses.”
“What happens to a person in a job where their pay has not substantially increased? Their local property tax bill will increase. The Minister might well respond by stating most people will stay within their band or that where there is an increase, it will be double digits. That is fine but what happens if somebody inherits a family home in an area where property prices are substantial? Their bill will substantially increase because the property is valuable. The reality is that it does not reflect their ability to pay the bill. It does not reflect that there may be no change in their circumstances. I understand the rationale behind LPT and I am in favour of it as a notion. The way we do it through the 2012 Act and this amending legislation is blunt and unnuanced. It does not reflect people's ability to pay.”
“Now we have a situation where, notwithstanding the significant increase in house prices of 25% over recent years, notwithstanding the fact the Government is doing its damnedest to prevent those increases in costs, and notwithstanding the fact there is a clear public policy objective of not having property prices continue to rise or continuing to rise at the current rate, we now have a situation where the Bill will specifically penalise those householders who may not have traded property, are not flipping property and are not wealthy people but who have a house that is of a particular value. They will now have a greater property tax burden. For one stream this is fine if they can pay it but what happens to the elderly retired person who has a fixed income? We know that person's income has not gone up by 25% in recent years.”
“Not only this but there have been consequences for those local authorities with regard to central Exchequer funding, which is cut because they are seen to have not played ball by reducing the local property tax when, in fact, the entire system is apparently designed to allow them to do this. When I look at Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council this is exactly the problem. When I was on the council we consistently reduced it by 15% because it was the fair and reasonable thing to do. Our residents, the people who live in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, pay vastly more than somebody in the Offaly, Carlow and Longford county council areas, in fact, more than somebody in any other local authority area we could pick around the country. They are disproportionately penalised.”
“Notwithstanding the fact this right was given to local authorities, and notwithstanding that it was always anticipated that local authorities such as Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council would be able to reduce the burden on their residents, and that other local authorities where property prices were lower, particularly small rural counties, could increase it correspondingly to benefit the coffers of the county council, there has been implicit and explicit criticisms - explicit in this Chamber in the course of this debate - of those local authorities that choose to recognise the fact their residents pay more than they need to, or more than they should, in the context of their earning capacity, when those local authorities reduce the property tax accordingly.”
“In this instance, we are looking at a local authority where local property tax costs its residents large amounts that benefit the council little enough because it is not a very populous area, and it ends up being a relatively poor local authority. In 2012, when this was put together in anticipation of the Local Government Reform Act 2014, the idea was always that local authorities would have the right to vary the property tax up or down by 15%, according to their needs or whatever way they chose to interpret it.”
“The vast majority of funding for local government comes from commercial rates. We do not have a substantial commercial rates base in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. We are by some distance the poorest local authority in Dublin and compare with county councils throughout the country rather than our bigger brothers and sisters in Dublin. The annual budget for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council is approximately €280 million or €290 million. Dublin City Council's budget is more than €1.2 billion. Looking at our commercial rates base, which is a little over €50 million per annum, Fingal County Council takes more than €80 million from Dublin Airport alone, just one ratepayer in its area. South Dublin County Council has a large commercial hinterland around the M50 which generates massive commercial rates for it.”
“Broadly speaking, LPT is a good thing. When it was introduced I welcomed the fact that it was part of a model to allow local authorities throughout the country to become self-financing and self-supporting. However, I have significant problems with the way it was put together and what the Bill does. In the first instance, local property tax was established to make local authorities self-funding. In reality, it has not achieved this to any substantial extent. I come from a background of 11 years on Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, the local authority area in which the highest rates of local property tax are paid in the country. There is, of course, a perception out there, and I know it gives some people great glee to suggest, that Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council is a very wealthy local authority. In fact, this is not the case.”
“A reply to a parliamentary question in March told me the final stage of drafting was either largely complete or complete. I hope the Minister of State can clarify when we might see it in the House. I think we had made significant progress on it in the last Dáil. Some feel it has dropped off the agenda. Perhaps he can correct that notion and let us know where it is. It is another important key in the future sustainability of fishing in this country and a very important legislative instrument we can introduce.”
“The anti-pollution measures mean those fish will not be full of plastic which then end up in our food chain. These are really important measures. I want to put on record my support for the Common Fisheries Policy and for the steps forward it has taken. That is not to say it is perfect by any measure. It needs to be constantly under review and amended to make sure it does the job it has to do. Rather than just standing here and saying "woe is me" and it is all Europe’s fault, let us acknowledge that the European Union has helped us enormously to take steps forward to make our fishing industry profitable, sustainable, healthy and one that will be there for future generations. Other Members have done this but I want to ask about the marine protected areas Bill and for clarity about its current state.”
“Equally, promoting quality seafood products through the common organisation of markets and ensuring fair competition regardless of product origin benefits all people involved in the fishing industry and everyone who relies on that industry for their livelihood, whether they are manning a boat or dealing with the product as it has landed and preparing it for sale and all the other ancillary industries that follow on from that at the end. All these regulatory measures are easily criticised but when looked at in the round, they are measures that will ensure there are fish to fish for generations to come. They are measures to ensure we have fish stocks that are sustainable into the future and that the quality of the product landed in Irish ports, be it Dún Laoghaire, Killybegs, Union Hall or wherever, is maintained.”
“Reducing that ocean plastic pollution by improving our port waste facilities is also part of that so that when fishermen come ashore, they have a place to dispose of the waste. We have to avoid the situation where it is either not managed properly and ends up in the sea or where there is no incentive for them to dispose of waste ashore. We need to facilitate them. It is not sufficient to say, “You may not do this”. We must facilitate them and make it as easy as possible to avoid that situation.”
“Equally the dumping of plastics into the ocean is something that has been addressed very concretely. It is something we need to take responsibility for. We know the oceans are literally choking as a result of the amount of plastic that is floating around in them. There will always be an element of plastic in the ocean. We have now reached a stage where, to a large extent, we will not be able to address the large amount of plastic in the ocean but we can stop more plastic going in and we can put in place regulations to ensure we minimise the pollution of the oceans through plastic. Again, that is something that needs to be done by the European Union. Responsibility needs to be taken by the international community to ensure the law is enforced in that regard.”