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 18 of 20.
“The Bill does not impact on the retirement provisions in place for certain public servants such as gardaí, members of the Defence Forces and other people who are in specific, high stress, high impact jobs. I have heard other Members speaking about this. The Bill does not place an undue burden on employees who want to retire. They should also have the choice to retire at their contractual retirement age if they wish to do so. They should not have to do so, however. That is a very important point. The Bill also sets out protections. As I said, this is another pro-employee measure. It sets out the potential ramifications for an employer which ignores the statutory provisions or declines to involve itself with an employee when he or she notifies it, under section 5, that he or she does not want to retire.”
“This is important, not just because it comes from the pensions commission report of 2021 - it has taken that long for the Bill to be drafted and get to the floor of the Dáil - but also because we know there is a gap between the ages of 65 and 66. People are often told they must retire at 65 and then find themselves in limbo before they reach the pensionable age at 66. This means, appallingly and disrespectfully, they are required to sign on as if they are unemployed and unavailable for work when, in fact, they had a job and wanted to continue to work but were not allowed to do so. This Bill will fix that, which is important. One of its primary aims is to fix it and reflect the recommendations of the pensions commission. Bridging that income gap has to be an important part of what the Bill does.”
“These important measures improve the rights of employees. The Act also sets out the procedure that is to be followed. Between three and 12 months before a person is due to retire, he or she must give a notice in writing to their employer. I do not know if "in writing" needs to be defined. Does that mean an email is sufficient? I would have thought it does but I wonder if that should be clarified in the legislation. It places a burden on the employee to notify the employer, which I do not have a problem with. More important, it gives the employee the right to indicate to their employer that they do not want to retire at the age of 66.”
“One of the questions I ask consistently in these debates is why on earth we make it so difficult for people to track down what the Bill says when it becomes law. It should not be so difficult to insert the age of 66, rather than referring to other legislation. I will come back to that point. The Bill will create a new employment right, specifically for employees who are subject to a retirement age in their employment contract which is set below the age of 66. This is about giving them the choice and option to continue work if they want to do so. We have heard a lot about this. This Bill is about choice, which is very important. It is also part of a suite of welcome rights the Government has brought forward in recent years, for example, increasing the minimum wage and also in the context of workers auto-enrolment in pensions.”
“I welcome the Bill. It makes a lot of sense and we have all been waiting for it. I note it is one of 21 Bills flagged for priority under the first months of the new Government. That is reflected in the urgency with which we are bringing it in, and I welcome it. As the Minister of State will know, the purpose of the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Bill 2025 is to deliver a statutory provision which sets out that an employer may not enforce a commercial or contractual retirement age which is below the State pension age if the employee does not consent to retire. One of the points I planned to make is about the drafting. The State pension age is defined in section 2(1) not as 66 years but as having the definition that is applied in section 2 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, which is 66 years.”
“First, I add my voice to the support for Deputy Boyd Barrett and Councillor Melisa Halpin in Dun Laoghaire as they begin their journey to recovery. Almost ten years ago, we voted for marriage equality and proudly so. We have made great strides down that road but there are still families who do not have familial equality. Children born into same-sex couples - depending on the means in which they were born - do not avail of the same rights and have issues relating to citizenship rights, succession rights, social protection rights, education rights, inheritance rights and birth registration rights, as well as the emotional toll it places upon them. When and how is the Government going to remedy this situation to ensure we have equality for all families in this country?”
“We in this House have to be willing to invest in the products that will bring about those dividends and in policies that will ensure young people have options when they go out of their homes and away from their families in order that they will not be drawn into attractive alternatives but will instead avail of opportunities that will bring them into a fruitful adulthood, one we can all be proud of.”
“Investment in young people is expensive but the idea is that a generation from now we will reap the dividends of having young people who understand that crime is not the only option. We can therefore compete with those on the streets who seek to draw them into criminality, tell them they can make easy money or get whatever it might be - jackets, runners and so on - and that this will somehow compensate for the damage that will be done to them in later life. Let us make sure they are equipped with the proper tools to allow them to make the decisions they have to make to be on a path that results in a positive, constructive approach to society. That is what we want for all our young people.”
“It had done this by bringing them into a very expensive prison system in which they had freedom to operate and from which they could walk away at any time, although they knew that, if they did, they would not be allowed back. While in there, they had to take responsibility for their conduct, make their beds, keep their rooms clean, get up early in the morning, get their breakfast, learn a trade and be involved in a programme that resulted in a particular outcome. This is the type of thing we need to invest in. Let us be real, however; it is not cheap. If we want to reap the dividends that come with diverting young people away from criminality, we also have to be prepared to pay the financial cost, because it is expensive.”
“However, I know from speaking to gardaí in my area that they feel that, if they come across a situation where young people are involved in something, they cannot intervene or that, if they do intervene, the courts system will not deal with those people in an effective way. With regard to young people who have involved themselves in crime and ultimately paid the price of being imprisoned, the most recent figures, which I believe are from 2024, show that 84% of young adults under 21 reoffended within three years. That is an appalling recidivism rate. Unfortunately, it reflects poorly on us in this House and in this society. We need to deal with that. Many years ago, when I worked in this House as an adviser, I visited a young offenders institution in Cheshire in England that had reduced the recidivism rate among young people to 16%.”
“We also need to give gardaí the confidence and power to deal with issues when they arise. One of the issues that people raise with me all the time in Dún Laoghaire, particularly in the context of antisocial behaviour, which is the thin edge of the wedge as regards youth criminal activity, is that we should encourage gardaí not to take the view that nothing can be done when those involved are children. We should also look at parental responsibility, which is something we do not focus on enough. Children do not get involved in criminality off their own bat. It happens because of a series of failures at societal, community and family level. There is no doubt about that. Parents need to take responsibility for their children. That is very clear.”
“It is a lovely place to live but we have had issues in the local area with young people who do not have alternative options, facilities to entertain them or sports facilities. One of the greatest pressures on Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown at the moment is the lack of playing pitches for the many sports clubs that want to provide facilities for kids who are in exactly this boat to do things other than the things they might otherwise end up getting involved in. There are a couple of approaches that we need to take to this. It is without doubt that we need to look at where there are problems and focus our efforts there but, as a general rule, we need to invest in communities and community facilities, particularly sports facilities, to give young people options to do other things.”
“Not providing young people with the opportunity and option to get out of that is part of the problem. The evidence linking where you come from with criminality is very clear. It is not necessarily something that is geographically defined although there are definitely concentrations. From the people I have represented, I know there are areas, particularly areas of Dublin, that are over-represented. That is not a reflection on the people who live in those areas but it is a reflection on investment in those communities and the options available to people who grew up in them. I will raise an issue regarding my own area that I have raised before. I live in Honeypark in Dún Laoghaire.”
“The 8,404 young people who were in the Garda youth diversion programme in 2022 benefited from it. It is impossible to say how effective that programme has been. We do not know how many other young people did not get into that programme and benefit from it. It yields dividends tenfold if it is effective. I come from a background of criminal law and defending young people who have been involved in or accused of being involved in criminality so I have seen these people up close and in person. I have heard their stories and I understand the circumstances that brought about that involvement. To be perfectly honest, it is very rarely accidental. If you superimpose a map of those who have become involved in criminality onto a map of disadvantage, it is very clear why it happens.”
“Ar dtús báire, ní féidir linn a rá cé chomh tábhachtach is atá an t-ábhar seo agus an luach a bhaineann le polasaí éifeachtach anseo ach an oiread. The importance of diverting young people away from crime cannot be overstated. It is a deeply important thing and the underlying principle has to be that prevention is better than cure. Although it does not mean that people are beyond the scope of policies if they have been involved in criminality, the reality is that it is increasingly difficult to undo the damage of being involved in certain criminality once it has happened. We are much better off investing in programmes that save people from ever going down that road or finding themselves in that situation. The value of diversion cannot be overstated.”
“This is a democratic Chamber elected by the people of Ireland, and what we want to do is get on with the work of those people, which urgently needs to be done. Let us do that. Let us recognise that no party has a veto on what this Chamber does, that no group can shout down the Chair and that no group can prevent this Government or this Chamber from doing its business. Let us get on with the work of the people.”
“Even in this debate, there has been jeering and haranguing from the other side of the House. It is not acceptable. The behaviour we saw here on 22 January and last week is not okay. There is nothing to justify it. It does not matter how much you disagree with what was done. This is a democratic Chamber that operates according to democratic norms. When the majority votes, you must accept that as a democracy and move on, even if you are unhappy with that. As the last speaker said, in the course of the more than 20 hours of meetings we had on this matter at meetings of the Dáil reform committee, we were essentially threatened by Members who told us that all hell would break loose and that we would see resistance like we had never seen before. That is the old Sinn Féin way. We do not do that here.”
“I understood this was a motion of confidence in the Ceann Comhairle, yet almost everything I have heard in this debate has been about ancillary issues that are not relevant to confidence or otherwise. This is why this discussion feels genuinely insincere. I do not believe those who profess a lack of confidence actually have a lack of confidence. What this feels like much more is an attempt to drag on this issue, raise it over and over again and stop this House from doing the business it wants and needs to do. All of us who talk to the people in our constituencies who voted for us hear the same refrain: get back to work, do the business of the people, stop haranguing each other and get on with it. That is what we are trying to do but the opposite is the case given what is happening.”
“It gives an enormous advantage to us as lawmakers but also to those working with law, whether in the courts or other areas of the law, to be able to say with some certainty whether an instrument has been repealed or not. It is the legacy of the statute law revision group that we will have that. This Bill is just the latest iteration of that. Congratulations to them. I thank them for their work and look forward to the passage of the legislation into law.”
“If a person wanted to know what the law actually says, they could take down the Act and it would be very clear from reading it, insofar as any Act is clear. It would be easy to read that Act to see what it actually says. We do not do that and I have never been given a convincing reason as to why we do not. It would be in service of the populace of Ireland to make those laws more accessible to them and more easily read. We could spend all day picking out interesting items that are being expunged through this legislation. Great credit is due to those who have done this work, who have spent the time not just identifying items that should be undone or repealed but also checking there is not a consequence further down the line, subsequent legislation that relies on them or whatever the case may be.”
“When we come to the budget later this year, and we are passing the Finance Act, the Appropriations Act, the Social Welfare Act and all those other pieces of legislation, it would be much more sensible to take the Act that is being amended or even the Acts that are being amended and, instead of leaving them there and changing them with a later document that amends them, bring them all together, repeal the old ones and pass a new piece of legislation which clearly states what it actually intends to do. That would save future generations from sitting down for a great many hours and going through tens of thousands of documents to see whether they are obsolete. It would also make that legislation much more legible to ordinary citizens.”
“The Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 2010 is very difficult to read without putting together a series of other Acts that were passed over the preceding 40 years, primarily since the principal Act of 1961. There are any number of examples of this. Taxes consolidation was done in the 1990s and served us very well at that stage. It was an enormous project to consolidate all the taxation legislation into one Act in 1997, which has since been amended time and time again.”
“They have to do that work because it has not been done on an ongoing basis. In respect of amending legislation, it would make much more sense to take the principal Act that is being amended, repeal it and restate it in the amending Act, so that it is restated with all of the changes that have been made. It may be an awkward job on an ongoing basis for those who are writing the legislation but it would negate the necessity for projects like this to be done 50 or 100 years from now. We would be creating consolidated legislation, essentially, when we sought to amend an older piece of legislation. Sometimes the legislation is not that old. In the area of road traffic legislation, for example, the laws have been amended dozens of times, literally.”
“If a Bill amends three or four other pieces of legislation and a section refers to amending, say, section 9 of the principal Act and then you are told the principal Act in subsection 2 is amended in paragraph (a) by replacing “and” with “or”, nobody knows what that means without also getting the principal Act that is being amended, and that Act itself may have also been amended elsewhere. This is a project that requires an awful lot of man hours. Reference has been made to those working on this project within the Office of the Attorney General and particularly in the Law Reform Commission, which does fantastic work. Credit is due to the Law Reform Commission. As a State agency, it delivers time and time again on what it says it will do. It delivers reports that bring common-sense solutions to these Houses and are all too often ignored.”
“Canon Roy Byrne, the rector, deserves enormous credit for the work that was done there to restore it to what it had been. It was opened recently. It deserves note that the landscape has changed so significantly. This is an enormous body of work that had to be done. In 100 years' time, a similar Bill may have to be brought before these Houses to carry out a similar cleaning exercise on obsolete legislation. I do not know if that will be necessary but I repeatedly make a twofold point in these Houses when legislation is going through, particularly amending legislation. First, it is largely illegible for anyone who does not have the corpus of legislation which precedes it.”
“Mary’s Abbey in Dublin, from which we get Abbey Street and St. Mary’s Abbey in Dublin. They were granted those lands and they occupied an enormous area that went as far as Bullock Harbour near Dalkey, where they built, for example, Bullock Harbour. Imagine how different that landscape would have been at the time this proclamation was made in 1836 compared with what we know today in the suburban area that is Monkstown. Many of the buildings that were there remain. Slightly later was the Church of Ireland church that was built at the junction in the centre of Monkstown village. It is a building that many will know. It is a particularly beautiful building and one which people may visit. It is worth mentioning that the schoolhouse attached to it was recently lovingly and extensively refurbished by the parish there.”
“The railway, which was not built until 1837, absolutely transformed that area of Dublin as the first commuter railway in the world, the Dublin to Kingstown railway as it was known, from what is now Pearse Station out to Dún Laoghaire. It changed the whole topography of that area because it was built across the sands at Sandymount and Blackrock and created a lagoon inside the track and created an entirely different coastline. Now in Blackrock you can see sea cliffs in the park that, prior to 1837, were where the waves would have crashed up from Dublin Bay. At that time, Monkstown was very much a rural area occupied by people in isolated houses, many of them large houses that were owned by merchants who worked in Dublin and had them as their country residences. Those were lands that were given to the monks of St.”
“Another item that drew my attention was reference No. 138 in the appendix, which is the order convening a meeting for carrying the Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act 1828 into force in the town of Kingstown. Another that caught my attention is No. 1209 in the appendix, relating to Monkstown and dating from 9 August 1836. It is the proclamation for apprehending the persons who broke into the watch house and vault in the churchyard of the Union of Monkstown in the district of Dublin Metropolis, and forced the lid off a coffin and left the body exposed in an offensive manner. One may cast back to what Monkstown was like in 1836. It is absolutely extraordinary. Most of what we now know as Monkstown in Dublin was not even built at that time.”
“There is a proclamation for apprehending the persons who set fire to a large stack of flax belonging to James Caldwell of Tamnavetton, parish of Kilmore, County Armagh in 1837, and an order setting the close time for salmon in the Skibbereen District in 1856. There is a proclamation made in 1825 appointing 6 January 1826 as the day from which the silver and gold coins of Great Britain may pass current and circulate in Ireland in 1825 and an order requiring all out-pensioners and registered men of Chelsea Hospital and Kilmainham Hospital to present for a fitness examination in December 1821. There is such a wide variety of material covered by this, it is extraordinary. This is the culmination of a project that has gone through iterations in the 2007 Act and those of 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2016. An enormous amount of work had to be done.”
“It is an enormous volume of material to go through but it is obviously a very valuable and important process. A perusal of the Bill reveals some of the very interesting proclamations that are being dealt with. One is the proclamation for apprehending the persons who posted an illegal notice at Tubber, near Dunlavin, County Wicklow, warning Thomas Holland to give up certain lands on 4 April 1834. I do not know whether Thomas did that or not but it is interesting that we should do away with that legislative instrument at this stage. There was another proclamation for apprehending the 16 men who walked into the Royal Canal Company’s store yard at the Royal Canal Harbour in the parish of St. Michael’s, County Dublin, and broke several barrels belonging to Mr. Guinness, brewer, in 1837.”
“I welcome this Bill. The statute law revision project is hugely valuable which has been going on for more than 20 years. When I worked as legal adviser to Enda Kenny TD, as he was then, when he was leader of Fine Gael in opposition, the first of these Bills, the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill 2004, which became the Act of 2005, was being dealt with and I had more time to peruse the 18th century and older legislation that were being deleted or expunged by that legislation. It is a hugely important project. To say it is an arduous task which those involved face is an understatement. I understand that for this Bill 40,000 secondary instruments were reviewed to ascertain whether they were obsolete and to be replaced and, of those, 3,367 will be repealed in the Bill.”
“That law is hugely problematic and will create lots of problems for everyone in Hungary, not only members of that community. For example, the law creates many draconian elements that are totally contrary to the principles of the European Union and the laws we all respect within the European Union. It is worth paying tribute to those parties that stood up to the rest of the parliament, given the overwhelming vote that went through, especially the Momentum party. Standing up for basic human rights is very important and it is worthy of remark because there was such an overwhelming majority in favour of it. I was sorry to see it was not discussed at the Council meeting. It would have borne discussing because allowing these things to go on affects every European Union citizen.”
“I recognise that some countries in the European Council have very different histories with the Jewish people and have a very different psychological attachment to what they did to them in the past which may dictate their foreign policy today. It is important to acknowledge that there is a one-sided conflict happening in Gaza and it is worth the European Union acknowledging that as well. I regret to see the new laws passed in Hungary to suppress LGBT minorities in that country were absent from the conclusions and the discussion. While the Council was good at addressing serious issues in such places as the Middle East and Ukraine, a discussion on the law that was passed by the Hungarian parliament by a majority of 136 to 27, led by Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party, was absent.”
“The reality is that this is not a Ukrainian problem alone. It is a problem and future threat for everyone in the European Union, even those of us who are far removed geographically. We are all vulnerable if the situation that obtains in Ukraine is allowed to continue. Equally I note the comments on Gaza in the Middle East section of the conclusions from the summit. I am slightly concerned about the opening commentary that states it deplores the breakdown of the ceasefire and then goes on to criticise the failure to surrender hostages. That is absolutely a valid criticism and Hamas has once again behaved deplorably. However, at the end of the day, the assault is very one-sided and there is a reason that is not acknowledged.”
“One of the things I would like us to be looking at in a broad sense towards the future is how we can move towards co-operating with Schengen in whatever way we can. I acknowledge the conclusions the European Council made in relation to Ukraine and welcome its continued support for Ukraine. We all feel for the Ukrainians, not only because they are victims of the war, but they are now in a situation where their so-called allies across the Atlantic have turned on them. There has been a regrettable rhetoric from the United States about Ukraine. It has been dealt with admirably by President Zelenskyy in difficult circumstances but it is worth acknowledging that there is a role for the European Union as a whole to step into the breach, take over and ensure this is something we are serious about.”
“It is interesting we are having these statements on the day the Schengen Agreement turns 30. The Schengen area is 30 years in existence today. It started with seven countries and now comprises 25, plus four non-EU countries. It is a union that has made us somewhat complacent about crossing borders because, as part of its operation in the European Union, it makes it very easy for citizens to travel around the European Union. Unfortunately, Ireland is not part of the Schengen area for understandable reasons, given the free travel area we have with the UK and the importance of the open Border with Northern Ireland. However, post-Brexit we have benefited from some other Schengen instruments, including for example the Schengen alert system under the extradition framework, the European arrest warrant framework, which has benefited us hugely.”
“Let us recognise the fact that now, as a grown-up, sovereign nation, the Government and this Parliament can make that decision without recourse to the United Nations and without fear that this will somehow to encroach on our military non-alignment.”
“It does not relate to military non-alignment. It is about recognising that we are a sovereign country and we are grown-ups now. We can make our own decisions about when it is appropriate to deploy more than a dozen Irish troops abroad. I do not want to ask China, Russia or the United States for permission to deploy Irish troops abroad. We can think of instances such as Bosnia and the Mediterranean when we have been delayed in putting our troops into foreign theatres to do good work. We have been delayed from doing that because the UN is no longer functional in this regard. It has not approved a new international peacekeeping mission since 2014.”
“I am glad that when Simon Coveney was in that portfolio, he spearheaded the process. Mr. Coveney purchased two coastal patrol vessels from New Zealand and established progress in terms of the Naval Service becoming a navy, which will happen. There are lots of other ways in which the Defence Forces will grow. Another important part of that - this may be a slightly selfish thing to say - is the naval base being established in Dún Laoghaire Harbour, which is a really important base of operations for the Naval Service in the Irish Sea patrolling our coasts and keeping us safe. I look forward to when that will happen and to efforts to make sure it does happen. The other issue is the triple lock. There has been much misinformation here in the course of this debate on what the triple lock is. It has nothing to do with neutrality.”
“I do not want to be in a country where we cannot speak out against what we see in Gaza or in Ukraine or in any number of other theatres around the world where there are appalling atrocities being meted out against individuals and innocent civilians. I do not want to be in a situation where we cannot call that out for what it is. Neither do I want to be in a situation where we are sending Irish citizens to fight those wars. That is not what we are about because we are a militarily non-aligned country. In the context of level of ambition 2 and the report of the Commission of the Future of the Defence Forces, I absolutely want us to get there. I agree with other Members that we have not got there. There is a shameful lack of investment in our Defence Forces that needs to be remedied. I am glad that we are remedying it.”
“It does so in a way that actually promotes the independence of the countries involved, whether it is Malawi or any other of the project countries that are assisted by Irish Aid. It genuinely benefits those communities and by extension it benefits us all. How Ireland has approached that is something of which we can be genuinely proud. Equally, in terms of defence, being part of the European Union has allowed us to stand on our own two feet. In reality, we are, as Enda Kenny said many years ago, not a neutral country; we are a non-aligned country. It seems to me that some people in this Chamber have a difficulty understanding the distinction between those two things. I do not want to be part of a neutral country.”
“The sooner we recognise the European Union as a trade partner, our greatest trade partner, and a way for us to establish our sovereignty and independence, the better. We have led within the European Union on many projects. One such project is Irish Aid. The foreign aid mechanism that we operate within this country is something of which we can be enormously proud. It is very much in contrast to the way foreign aid operates in other countries. Foreign aid from the US is decreasing. For many years, however, the aid the US provided came with strings attached. Irish Aid, on the other hand, has a totally different approach that is much more altruistic. It identifies a fixed number of projects, it pursues them without strings attached.”
“The strength we have within the European Union has also allowed us to build our confidence as a country and to grow to where we find ourselves today, namely as a leader within the European Union in many respects. It is important that we maintain that status and continue to build our links with the European Union. I am proud to be part of Fine Gael, which is the most pro-European party in this Chamber and a member of the largest party in the European Union, namely the European People's Party. Our consistent support for European projects and integration is extremely important. This stands in sharp contrast to Sinn Féin which has, regrettably, opposed every single step we have taken within the European Union and within European integration programmes. There has been a kind of coming to Jesus moment recently, but this is not nearly enough.”
“We live in an increasingly interconnected world. That is true as much of trade as it is of defence. Listening to some of the contributions today, one would think that for many in opposition this is a cause for regret. In fact, it is something that has benefited Ireland immensely. In the context of trade, for example, being part of the European Union has afforded us an opportunity to really come of age as a country. Since we joined the European Union we have had an opportunity genuinely to bloom as a country, to become part of the international community in a way that we never were before that. After its establishment as a state, Ireland was very much in the shadow of the United Kingdom, its former colonial master. We got the opportunity to build new trade opportunities and new links with other countries.”
“I am seeking leave to introduce this Bill to make two important changes to the judicial oath of office, including to regularise it in the context of offices that do not have a religious basis and should not require an element of faith of any person undertaking that office and to ensure those who are doing the important work our Judiciary does do so in the knowledge that the oath they have taken is a legitimate and fair one.”
“This is something we have tried to do in referendums in the past in relation to Article 12.4.1° on the age to run for the Presidency, which in the Irish version is 35 and in the English version is technically 34, as it requires people to have reached their 35th year. It is not something the people went with, as it happens, but wherever we have the opportunity to do so, we should make an effort to standardise and remove discrepancies between the English version of the Constitution and the Irish version, which of course holds precedence as it is our first official language.”
“We are very lucky to have a highly functioning Judiciary that applies the rule of law without fear or favour. It is often widely criticised, particularly online, for making decisions in accordance with law. However, we are lucky that we have a Judiciary that applies the Constitution and the rest of the law in an even-handed way, in sharp contrast even with other member states of the European Union. In the same breath, to require those people to take an oath which for some of them will be vacuous is grossly unfair. The Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution (Judicial Oath of Office) Bill seeks to amend the oath as set down in Article 34.6.1° of the Constitution and equally to correct the discrepancy between the leagan Gaeilge and the English version of the oath.”
“It seems absolutely contradictory in a modern state that we would require people of a different faith or no faith at all to stand up in the Supreme Court and make a declaration in the presence of Almighty God, a personage in whom they might not believe to any extent at all, to take the oath in the presence of that personage and then require that that same personage would direct and sustain them. This is inconsistent with modern Ireland. I am not anti-religion. It is hugely important. Many judges believe in God, but it must also be the case that many do not believe in God. As a result, it seems unfair and is a nonsense to expect them to take an oath that essentially expresses a belief in God or else. It is one or the other. Therefore, this Bill seeks to amend that oath in those two respects.”
“One of the things this Bill seeks to do is to change the English version of the oath to say the prospective judge will act "without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any person", rather than towards any man. The other thing the Bill seeks to do is to take the God element out of the oath. "I láthair Dia na nUilechumhacht" is the term used in the Irish oath. "In the presence of Almighty God" is the English, and there is a sentence at the end "May God direct and sustain me". I am a Christian. I believe and I do not have a problem with that, but that is definitely not true of every judge or every person who is appointed a judge under the Constitution.”
“Every judge appointed under the Constitution needs to take the oath of office and it currently reads in English: In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office [the person is undertaking] ... without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws [of Ireland]. It finishes with the words "May God direct and sustain me". Interestingly, the Irish version of the oath refers to "gan eagla gan claonadh, gan bá gan drochaigne chun duine ar bith". The Irish version does not refer to a man specifically but to a duine or person.”