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 9 of 20.
“It is part of my commitment to the job I do in that regard. Of course inaccuracy can lead to serious problems. Anybody incorrectly convicted of any crime in this State is a travesty of justice as well as a miscarriage of justice, but the effect it has on that individual, their friends, their family and their community is enormous. Whatever we do, we need to make sure that cannot happen and that is why we have such a robust criminal justice system. It is why, even in the Special Criminal Court, which is a non-jury court, judges have found there was insufficient evidence to convict a person who in the popular mind is absolutely guilty. The whole point of having that court process is to sift through that evidence and separate the public opinion from the evidence and the evidential basis for arriving at a conclusion.”
“However after that, assuming it makes that mistake, the process has to go through three more layers before a person is convicted. I agree with Deputy Ahern, who said an inaccuracy in this regard or mistake in the criminal justice system can lead to serious consequences. I have been practising as a criminal barrister for over 17 years, primarily in defence. I have prosecuted. I do not prosecute now but I still do defence. The primacy of a jury trial and of the principle of innocent until proven guilty is hugely important to me. It is perhaps the most valuable part of our criminal justice system, which ensures that unlike our nearest neighbour we do not have regular certificates of miscarriage of justice. Our criminal justice system take that principle of innocent until proven guilty really seriously, as I do.”
“They will have to look at the manner in which the Garda made the decision, by which I mean they will look at the CCTV or at the piece of evidence assessed by the facial recognition technology and they will, in accordance with the oath or affirmation they make when they become jurors, satisfy themselves beyond a reasonable doubt the evidence as presented supports the conclusion they are being asked to draw from it. As such, there are three levels of certitude after the FRT makes its analysis and oe would have to expect that is a reasonable basis on which the errors the FRT undoubtedly will make, statistically, can be undone. We are talking about a 5% chance it is going to make mistake, particularly to a person of colour or a woman.”
“They also have to examine the manner in which the garda arrived at his or her conclusion and decide whether the FRT was correct or was reasonably likely to have been correct. Once that is done and the DPP decides a given person is going to be prosecuted, the evidence then has to be presented before a court, and in almost all these cases, before a jury. There are obviously exceptional cases involving non-jury courts like the Special Criminal Court but they are very much the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of cases involving this kind of thing will end up before a jury, so 12 ordinary Irish citizens will also have to look at this.”
“That person critically analyses what the garda has come up with, so even if the garda has taken for granted the result of the FRT, it is still up to the directing officer in the DPP's office to be happy the garda is correct, or perhaps more importantly, there is an objective basis for saying that is a reasonable result for the FRT, so there is second layer of sifting being done by dispassionate officers who have no skin in the game in terms of the Garda investigation but who have an independent function, jealously guarded by that office, to separate themselves from political pressure, Garda pressure, public pressure or anything like that. DPP officials also have to go through that information.”
“Let us say the garda decides the person the FRT has identified is the suspect and puts it into the investigation file that gets sent to the DPP, which is staffed with highly professional individuals whose job it is to critically analyse the investigation files produced by An Garda Síochána and decide what the result or the actions on that should be, to decide who should be prosecuted, where that person should be prosecuted, for which offences, etc.”
“It may well turn up results that garda knows are not correct or, more importantly, that the garda sees are insufficiently accurate or clear. The FRT might throw back an image it says is a given person, but which the garda thinks is not an image of a given person, knows it is not or does not know if it is or not. Leaving to one side that a garda can make that analysis for himself or herself, another two layers of certification go with this.”
“You press Ctrl and F and search for Barry Ward. From experience, if you search for “Ward” you will get “toward”, “forward” and all the words that include “ward”, so the technology is flawed as it does not get me the right results. However, when I look at that search result I am not looking for “forward” or “toward” but “Barry Ward” and I have the capacity as a human being to distinguish between those incorrect results and the results I am looking for. It is the same for a detective who instead of sitting down to watch 100 hours or 1,000 hours of CCTV can go through and search for the facial characteristics of a person who is being sought, or the other biometric factors that can be programmed into the software.”
“However, the important thing is the FRT that does that analysis does not make the final decision on who gets charged or prosecuted. The DPP does but a garda makes the recommendation through the investigation file that goes to the DPP. As such, a human being must be satisfied the result that has been thrown up by the FRT is correct before advancing from that point. The correct highlighting of the fact this technology is fallible and the correct querying of whether it is going to create incorrect results does not mean that cannot be mitigated and we cannot have a situation where a human being is making that analysis for himself or herself, and that is really important. In the debate on the original legislation I likened it to opening a PDF with a thousand pages in it to look for the words "Barry Ward".”
“The way the system worked at the time individual detectives, who are highly trained and highly prized in terms of the time they have available to do their policing work, were sitting down for hundreds of hours watching CCTV footage. Some of this bore no results whatsoever and some of it showed them what they wanted to see. In that circumstance FRT could have been used to search through that footage and save them the time they arguably wasted, though obviously it was part of their investigation and of their duties, looking through all that footage. Would the FRT come back with the result that this is Jim O'Callaghan sitting on the Luas when in fact it is not him at all? Yes, of course. Is it more likely to pick a person of colour and misidentify them? Yes, that is going to happen.”
“Then the DPP will make the decision on who gets charged, or whatever it is. FRT is a tool to help the Garda in that process. I acknowledge that this technology will, in the course of being used, make mistakes because it is artificial intelligence and it does not have the experience or the intelligence of a person. It cannot be the be all and end all. It cannot be the sole decider of what happens but it can be a tool to help gardaí reduce the time spent sifting through it. When we were debating the previous legislation, the topic de jour was the riots in Dublin in November 2023. There was some amount of video footage gathered by gardaí from individual mobile phones, CCTV within shops, Garda CCTV on the street and CCTV on buses and the Luas, etc. An enormous volume of material was gathered.”
“Suffice it to say that once this legislation is passed and if it is to be used, the policy and the parameters put in place by An Garda Síochána for its usage will be absolutely vital for whether it is used correctly, properly and without infringing on the rights of individuals. Let us be clear exactly what it does. This, essentially, is a way in which we can cut down on the sifting through of information by an investigation team. For example, a crime is alleged by an individual or by a group or whatever it is. The investigative arm of the State is An Garda Síochána. They will send out their detectives or their gardaí to carry out investigations, which will include taking witness' statements, looking at CCTV, examining the scene, and gathering any other evidence that might help them in arriving at who they feel is a reasonable suspect.”
“They have quite rightly identified lots of the problems that exist with this technology. There is undoubtedly an ethnic and gender bias that comes with this technology. We know that it is more likely to misidentify a person of colour or somebody who is ethnically different to the white population, not even the Irish population. As I understand it most of the these data are based on databases of people who are predominantly white Caucasian individuals from around the world. That is a problem in and of itself. Similarly, it is more likely to misidentify a woman than a man. These are problems absolutely. They should not be glossed over in any way but they are not an argument for not having it and this is where we need to look at how this technology will actually be used.”
“There is a certain irony to the way the authorities behave with CCTV in London. It is undoubtedly a tool that is used by law enforcement for crime detection and prevention but it is also an unwarranted interference with the privacy of individuals and the right for them to move around. I am not in favour of CCTV everywhere and the notion that citizens should be monitored wherever they go within Dublin or any other city or metropolitan area around Dublin. That does not mean that there is not a place for facial recognition technology and for the technology that is being advocated by this Bill. I have listened to the contributions made by a number of speakers. I am also aware of the commentary from bodies of which I am a member, such as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, and for which I have great respect.”
“I am in favour of this Bill. I was in favour of the previous legislation as well in the debates that we had in the Seanad when I was a Senator. This is a move forward and an opportunity for the Garda. I want to set a few things straight in the debate. I am conscious that we have CCTV in public places. We have, essentially, surveillance of the populace at large in many places. I actually do not like that. I am not in favour of us becoming like London, for example, which is the most surveilled city in the world and where someone literally cannot cross a street or turn a corner without being monitored by CCTV. That is not a good thing. People might be familiar with the postcard that has the blue plaque on the house where George Orwell lived in London. There is a massive CCTV camera next to it, which is ironic.”
“I agree about having a standard measure that is predictable from year to year, particularly in relation to the tax brackets. However, tax credits is one area in respect of which we could potentially address issues relating to working families. These are the families caught between qualifying for certain grants and not earning enough to be okay on their own. Tax credits, reform of tax credits or giving them advantages in terms of what tax they pay is one area. Means tests are not keeping up with inflation, and that affects families in the middle ground. They might earn more money, fall outside something that is means tested but not have more purchasing power on foot of inflation.”
“I raised with the Minister for children previously the idea that we might have varied rates according to where they are in the country, but I do not know if that is possible. Has the Department of Finance looked at the possibility of having staggered rates around the country?”
“I acknowledge what has been done in the budget in respect of this area. I acknowledge particularly the difficulty in balancing the importance of supports without creating inflationary pressure in other areas. I recognise that this has been done in the budget to a large extent. However, in certain schemes where supports are being provided, there are different pressures on families depending on where they live. The supports that are provided are across the board. There is no recognition of the fact that, for example, housing is much more expensive in cities. There is no recognition of the fact that if you are running a childcare facility in my constituency of Dún Laoghaire, your rent will be higher as will the rent paid by your staff.”
“I am asking this question on behalf of my colleague Deputy Pete Roche who has done an awful lot of work in this area for families in his constituency of Galway East. The question is about what assessment the Department of Finance has carried out of the cumulative increase in costs in things like energy, childcare and housing, and the effect that has on hard-pressed working families. Will that assessment result in any particular policy change, for example, more targeted supports in next year's budget or future budgets?”
“I recognise what the plan is in terms of judicial reviews and establishing a local standard for judicial reviews; a person cannot be living in County Donegal and object to one off Rosses Point or something like that. That is really important. Let us make it easy for people to do it, and the easiest way to do it is to make it quicker.”
“I welcome the fact the Minister is reiterating the State's commitment to offshore because as an offshore island, essentially, this has huge potential for us. I think of the projects even in my own constituency or off the coast of my constituency in the case of the Codling Wind Park and Dublin Array projects. They are hugely important projects but the level of investment from RWE or the contracting companies there is enormous before they ever get off the ground. That has to be a disincentive in real terms for companies that actually want to invest in our infrastructure, provide us with clean energy and help us to get to a point where we are actually a net energy exporter. That is really important. I appreciate what the Minister said but I ask him to redouble his efforts in terms of specifically addressing the delays issues.”
“Has the Department examined why that is the case and identified why it is that the many international companies that are operating in this field feel it is not worth their while bidding for projects off the coast of Ireland? If it does not have bidders, what are we doing about that? Is there some other State instrument that can step in to fill that place or is there something we need to change in the terms of that auction?”
“I do recognise that some progress has been made but I know from speaking to people around the country that there is a real frustration at the lack of speed of decision-making. If a decision is made today to start a process to establish a wind farm offshore, whether that is implanted into the seabed or floating, we are many years away from the realisation of that plan. Honestly, people do not understand why that should be the case. It should not take that long. I recognise what the Government has put forward in terms of an infrastructure plan that it is going to shorten those times but in terms of what the Minister's Department is doing, what specifically are we doing to make sure that these things can happen faster? In particular, the Minister State said there have been no bidders.”
“My question is about the provision of offshore wind energy and initiatives his Department might have put in place to fast-track that, particularly in the context of dealing with the frustrations of people who recognise that, as I understand it, there is currently no operating offshore wind capacity in Ireland.”
“Surely six months is plenty of time for the HSE or any other prosecutorial authority to get its act together and bring a prosecution. It is a summary matter. Let us not make it more punitive than it needs to be or allow the authorities not to have to get their act together.”
“If the Minister of State feels greater powers are needed, the fines courts may impose should be increased. The recouping of expenses by the prosecutor, which would be the HSE in this case, is more common in regulatory or civil offences than in criminal offences. This is a criminal offence. It should be recognised as such and prosecuted as such, with appropriate penalties, fines and custodial sentences, where appropriate. The recouping of expenses is cumbersome and blunt and does not reflect the ability of the offender to pay. Section 18 proposes to change section 10 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 with regard to the statute of limitations on the prosecution of offences. This is now six months but the Bill would extend that to 12. Will the Minister of State give us a justification for that provision?”
“The terminology used in the Finance Acts refers to selling or keeping for sale. The danger with section 9(1) is that it makes an offence of selling these products. It should be an offence to sell them, to keep them for sale or to plan to sell them, where there is evidence to support that. Why allow an out for potential defendants where they are not caught in the act of selling even though they might have a back room full of these products? That does not mean they should not be liable to prosecution under section 9. Section 17 provides for the HSE to be able to recoup its expenses. This is something I associate much more with regulatory offences. That provision should not be there. There are provisions relating to category A and B fines built into the penalties provisions of the Bill.”
“While I welcome the Bill, there is a real missed opportunity to address the actual public health issues that arise from the proliferation of vapes in Ireland. An opportunity has also been missed in not addressing nicotine and the targeting of these products. I do not doubt that the industry would deny children are being targeted, but that is what the flavours are for. Adults may indulge in them, but they are primarily aimed at children. I will make some other comments about the Bill. In section 9, it creates a criminal offence of selling these products. What astonishes me about that is that nothing appears to have been learned from the many years of application of the Finance Acts in relation to, for example, the sale of tobacco products that have not had tax paid on them and do not have the tax stamp on them.”
“We should be changing the word "tobacco" to "nicotine" in the Public Health (Tobacco) Acts because any product that promotes or delivers nicotine is bad for the population. The same controls that apply to cigarettes should apply to vapes at the very minimum. Not only is this a huge growth industry, as evidenced by the proliferation of shops throughout our towns and villages around the country, but people are now starting vaping without using cigarettes first and we do not know what harm it is doing to them. As other contributors have mentioned, what is worse than that is the number of children who are vaping. Notwithstanding laws that might be in place, we know that lots and lots of children are doing this and that flavoured vapes are specifically targeted at those children. This Bill does nothing to address that either.”
“I welcome this Bill. It is necessary and it is very important that we, as the Legislature, address the environmental impacts of disposable vapes. They are everywhere. Everybody knows that. They see them, particularly in town centres. They are even seen next to bins. They somehow do not seem to find their way into the bins but are littered around them. Those horrible stickers are put onto the bins as well. I welcome any move to ban disposable vapes. That is a good thing. However, I also think this Bill misses the point. When we are legislating in relation to vapes, why are we not legislating to deal with the fact that nicotine is being distributed widely? It is a corrosive, addictive and carcinogenic product and we are not doing anything to stop it from being distributed. That is the real missed opportunity.”
“It is about recognising the fact that people need support. This family needs support. They are not getting it from the State and that is why we need to change the law. I am grateful for what the Minister of State said about bringing the message back to the Minister, but it is really important she understands that this has to change. It is absolutely not fair or sustainable. It is something this House can do. It is within the power of the Legislature to change this. Let us get on and change it. I would be grateful if the Minister of State could convey that to the Minister.”
“The restrictions placed on this woman and family are wrong. That is why I say we need to change the law. The Minister of State quoted Circular 54/2019. I understand why that is there and that it is the interpretation, but it is not correct in terms of the scheme put in place by these Houses 25 years ago to provide for exactly this type of situation. It was to provide backup, succour and care for those people in that situation who are being failed by the application of the Act in this way. The Department is entitled to make the statement that it is not entitled to go beyond the scheme. It is probably legally correct to do so, and I say that as a lawyer who respects the law, but I also think we cannot allow bureaucracy to hold sway always. We must look at people in situations. That is what this House is about.”
“At the outset, I totally accept the Minister of State's bona fides on this issue. I know of her track record on leave for carers and carers' rights. I have a copy of the reply she read. I am really disappointed by it because in no part of it is there any expression of compassion or regret for the fact that our system has failed this teacher. This teacher is being unduly penalised for the fact that she changed position. Of course, technically and to the letter of the law, the response is correct that she is not an employee of the Department but of the school. When she changed school, she was with a different employer and, therefore, the clock reset on her entitlement to carer's leave but, when she changed, she did not know her daughter's diagnosis was coming. What the law states is wrong and what the Act does is wrong.”
“Alternatively, is it not the case that the Minister could make regulations to change this or to set out the parameters by which section 6(1) should be interpreted? Can we not allow common sense and compassion for once to triumph over bureaucracy? If it is not the case that we can and if all of the advice is that this is what the Act says and we cannot go beyond the legislation, when are we going to change it? Let us change that law quickly. Only a small change is required to allow for the interpretation regarding somebody who is continuing in the employment of the Department of Education and Youth, continuing in her role as a teacher and continuing to serve her community and students but is being let down by the system so let us change it if that is what we have to do.”
“It makes no sense that the Act is being interpreted in this way. We are allowing that awful red tape to triumph over the compassion that should be shown to this woman. We put carer's leave in place for a very specific reason with specific parameters and now they are being interpreted to exclude somebody who by all logical consideration should be entitled to carer's leave and should be entitled to take the time she needs to with her daughter to ensure that she can look after and care for her at what must be an appallingly difficult time for that family. Does the Minister of State agree that this is the only interpretation that can be made in respect of section 6(1)? If so, when are we going to change the law because that is the next step that has to take place?”
“The last few months or however long her daughter has left will now be marred by the fact that her mother is not being given carer's leave to look after her. We deal with hard cases in our jobs all the time and one would like to think that when we can solve problems, we would solve them. I have put down parliamentary questions about this and been told that section 6(1) prevents the Department from doing it. I do not necessarily accept that. I cannot see how that is the correct interpretation of the Act. It is surely open to the Minister or Department to say that this woman is with the same employer, has the same Teaching Council number and has been in the same job for over a decade. Can we not express the will and desire to stand by her at a time that is incredibly difficult for her and her family?”
“She moved school in January and within a month of moving to that new school, she got the terrible news that her daughter was suffering from terminal cancer. By a bizarre and restrictive interpretation of the Act, she is now being told that she cannot qualify for carer's leave because she is in a new job for less than 12 months. This is the most appalling interpretation of the law. The way the law is written makes perfect sense and it is entirely sensible to have the 12-month provision. This lady was a teacher for ten years. She is still employed by the Department and still has the same Teaching Council number. The only thing that has changed is the school in which she works. I find myself aghast at the fact that the Department has now made a decision that red tape is going to triumph over common sense and compassion.”
“I want to raise qualification for carer's leave for teachers. Section 6(1) of the Carer's Leave Act 2001 makes provision for carer's leave for teachers and provides that they must be in continuous employment for 12 months before they are entitled to that leave. That makes perfect sense because it avoids a situation where a brand-new employee takes leave having just entered into a position, which would be very unfair on the school and all the circumstances around that. Section 3 of the Act also provides for the Minister to have the power to make regulations in this regard. I want to talk about a teacher in my constituency who has been teaching in a school for ten years so she is not a new teacher. She is not a newly qualified or newly employed teacher. She is paid by the Department.”
“I acknowledge what the Minister of State said. Am I to take it I may now say to the parents I mentioned that the fact they have been told their son will not have a place in September is not definitive? There is still work going on and I should tell them to continue to engage. There is a review continuing into special educational needs places in Shankill and there is still the possibility of a place for their son. We all recognise the importance of securing a place for that family and the impact it will have on them and on that child's growth and potential. I agree with everything the Minister of State said. Investment in this area is vital. These parents have been told a place will not be available but I understand from what he said that this is still under review and may change.”
“What do I say to the parents in Shankill I mentioned, who are now facing a situation where their son will not have a place in September? What can be done for them to ensure he gets the assistance he needs in the next academic year of 2026-27? What do I tell them they can do to move things along? They should not have to ring around every school in the area. There is no central point from which they can obtain that information.”
“I thank the Minister of State. I do not want to downgrade the level of investment in, and commitment to, this issue the Government has shown. I acknowledge his reference to the progress made in this area. However, all the announcements and good work will not benefit the children who do not have a place. I was contacted by the family of a young boy who does not have a place in St. Anne's National School in Shankill and has been told he will not have one next September. We know the value of special educational needs classes. They stop from falling behind those children who can keep up with a little extra accommodation and assistance. Such provision is hugely important and not providing it is myopic in the context of the damage it does to children's long-term educational prospects.”
“Is there a way in which we can tell small businesses that there is a route for them into this that is less bureaucratic and cumbersome and more streamlined and, therefore, allows businesses to get on with what they do rather than filling out forms, and instead of trying to justify a process, we let them get on with the business of providing whatever service, construction or so on they provide?”
“I acknowledge that as well. I know the Minister of State and his predecessor are committed to making it easier. Is there a way in which we can reduce the bureaucratic burden that comes with some of this because, as important as public procurement processes are, particularly when it comes to ensuring value for money for the taxpayer and cutting down on waste, from what I have been told by businesses in my constituency in particular, there is a wasteful burden on them from the point of view of engaging with procurement processes? Is there a way in which we can reduce that burden on them while maintaining transparency and safeguards that ensure public money is spent correctly?”
“Public procurement has become hugely complex and hugely cumbersome and more and more difficult for small businesses to get involved in because of the rules around it. Will the Minister of State address what specific elements may be in the strategy to make it more accessible and easier for SMEs to get involved in public procurement contracts?”
“I thank the Minister of State. I acknowledge the commitment in the programme for Government, which is very welcome. In order for public procurement to be effective, it needs to have the confidence of the people. The transparency committed to in the programme for Government is really important in that regard. Unfortunately, we are all aware of a number of projects that appeared to have lacked that transparency. I will not mention any projects on the Leinster House campus but even in my local authority area, there has recently been a bit of controversy around steps in Deer Park in Mount Merrion. The danger with that is that people feel public procurement is not effective or fair, which compromises the entire system. The most important thing in the commitment in the programme for Government is the greater involvement of SMEs.”
“We cannot rely on social media companies to regulate themselves. Coimisiún na Meán and the Government need to step in to ensure regulation is in place to protect children, our future citizens and our country as a whole.”
“Social media companies and Internet providers must bear responsibility but we cannot expect them to do it on their own. There is a role for the Government to intervene and place obligations upon them. That is where my perspective as a criminal lawyer comes in. In a talk I gave in The Harold School a little over a year ago, I explained to parents what their children are potentially exposed to, whether that is sharing images or developing opinions totally at variance with reality. Parents have no idea of the serious criminal wrongdoing their children can be involved in completely unwittingly. They think something is relatively innocent but it is actually a serious criminal offence that does enormous damage to the victim in that case. It is not enough to leave parents in the lurch. Regulation is the key.”
“He has given talks to parents in schools across Dublin and Wicklow and in my constituency in schools such as The Harold School in Glasthule, Educate Together in Monkstown and a number of other schools I have been to, including Johnstown. Parents are shocked by what their children are exposed to when they have unfettered access to the Internet. That is really what is at the source here. I favour a ban on access to social media for under-16s and a ban on access to smartphones for under-16s. I know that can be slightly controversial, particularly with children who fall into those age categories. I am not saying they should be isolated from the Internet, which is an important tool for them, but the notion that they have unfettered access to it is a problem. That is where parents come in. Parents cannot be solely responsible for this.”
“I acknowledge the work the Minister has done in this area. I welcome his comments about enforcing age verification measures online. I approach this issue from two perspectives - first as a criminal lawyer and second as a parent. Online safety issues are most pertinent and most dangerous when it comes to the protection of our children. Over the past year, I have been involved in a number of talks by Eoghan Cleary, vice principal of a school in Wicklow, who has expertise in the exposure of our young people online to hardcore pornography or child sexual abuse material, hardcore and extreme opinions and all kinds of other abuse material.”
“Irish people will be very much worse off without international rules-based trade systems. CETA is part of that, and I genuinely believe that Irish people individually and collectively, and the Irish economy, will be much better off as a result of signing that agreement between Canada and the European Union and allowing that framework to exist to promote and enhance trade between Europe and Canada. That is to all our benefits. We should be passing the law because it was correctly identified in the Supreme Court that there were issues with the Act, which this Bill fixes. Let us get on with the job of passing the legislation, signing up to CETA and allowing those benefits to be there for all of the citizens of Ireland.”