Michael McDowell
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“Then I think of this particular Chamber where people are polite and kind to each other and listen to each other respectfully. There is no baying or shouting down or whatever. It is a great tribute to the Seanad staff that that spirit continues to exist in this House.”
“I note that the whole scheme of the planning Act is that exempt development proposals are considered by the Houses. It is questionable whether this House has really considered the exempt development regulations. Without debate, we sent them off to a committee.”
“I am one of the people who disagrees with the substance of that report. We have to have a real solid debate on it here in this House, not merely a cursory one. It is an issue of fundamental importance. It cannot be avoided, one way or the other. Whatever your views are on it, it needs to be thrashed out.”
“Although coming up to the end of this term we are rushing things through, and the guillotine is well-oiled and slicing this way and that, we have a lot of work to do in the autumn.”
“The people who did that were brought before the International Court of Justice and condemned and imprisoned. If Ireland does not clearly state that there are to be consequences for people who do things like what Mladić, Milošević and Karadžić were brought to account for, if we are incapable as a State of publicly saying that what Secretar…”
“If we cannot, as a State, say publicly to Rubio, "Hands off the International Criminal Court", when they were quite happy when the people who did the 7,000 murders in Srebrenica got their just desserts, but when there is any suggestion that what has happened in Gaza, with 70,000 innocent people killed by aerial bombardment and land bombar…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,224 lines we hold for Michael McDowell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 25.
“I do not see it as the function of the Supreme Court to effectively advise proofs as to how Ireland could ratify CETA without offending the Constitution. Why do I say that? First, it was prejudging a broader issue as to whether the combined effect of this Bill, if enacted, and the CETA agreement are, in fact, constitutional. It was prejudging that issue and the Supreme Court should not do that. If this Bill was put before the Legislature and enacted into law, it was perfectly open to somebody to decide to litigate it before a court which has not committed itself to any propositions in relation to the question as to whether this Bill actually does clear the decks, so to speak, for Ireland's ratification.”
“Unfortunately, the majority agreed to a formula put forward by Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan which effectively said we should amend our Arbitration Act so as to qualify the enforceability of the decisions of the appeal court envisaged by the CETA agreement to make them unenforceable in the High Court in Ireland, and presumably in the Irish courts of appeal, if they adversely affected the constitutional order of the Irish State on the one hand or European law on the other. I have the greatest respect for the judges of the Supreme Court and in particular Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan, but it was not his function to speculate on what amendment would or would not get the Government out of its difficulty.”
“What I find problematical about this Bill is that its effect is not stated honestly to the Irish people. I listened carefully to the Minister of State's reply on Second Stage and I agreed with a lot of it. This does not prevent Ireland from regulating huge areas which are part of our sovereign entitlement as a member state. We are not totally bound by this agreement to surrender those powers of regulation, as the Minister says. I accept that proposition. However, that is not what is at stake here. I regard it as unfortunate that the Supreme Court, when asked by former Deputy Patrick Costello to rule whether Ireland could ratify the CETA agreement as it stood by reference to the Constitution, ruled by a majority that it could not do so - that the Constitution did not permit the State to do so.”
“As I indicated on the last occasion, being in favour of free trade and tariff-free imports and exports between countries does not mean being in favour of elevating international capital or international corporations to the status of sovereign independent states - bodies that can go to a tribunal and have a sovereign state made amenable to the order of that tribunal, except insofar as a sovereign state agrees voluntarily to accept that state of affairs by way of some international agreement. It is well worth noting that Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Slovenia have not ratified the CETA agreement. These are not just outliers. France, Poland, Hungary and Ireland are countries which are significant players in the European Union's affairs.”
“This Bill is before us because former Deputy Patrick Costello brought a case in the High Court effectively to prevent Ireland from ratifying the CETA agreement on the grounds that it was an impermissible derogation from Irish sovereignty, on which point he won by a majority of four to three in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that for Ireland to ratify this agreement, with the Constitution as it is and the law as it was, would be unconstitutional. So we start from there.”
“The second point is that I do not believe that any real Irish interest is served by the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, being ratified. The free tree trade elements of CETA are already in operation, so the positive benefits of the agreement are already in play. Nobody that I know of in this House is opposed to those already existing elements continuing to operate. As a matter of European law, the EU is not competent to conclude this agreement except by the individual ratification of all its member states. At the moment, or as last advised, 17 EU member states have indicated their willingness to ratify it and ten states in the EU have yet to ratify it. This is something in which we have a free choice.”
“I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Thomas Byrne, and his officials. As I said in the very limited time that was available on Second Stage, I am totally opposed to the enactment of this Bill. I want to make a few points. First, I am fully in favour of free trade. I do not believe in tariffs. As between Ireland and Canada, I have no problems with the European Union concluding a trade with agreement with Canada for the importation and exportation of goods and services between the two jurisdictions, namely the member states of the European Union, which are independent states, on the one hand, and Canada, which is a highly respectable, stable democracy, even if it is, at present, under siege from the appalling rhetoric of President Trump, on the other.”
“I might just make one point. I do not believe, I am afraid, any suggestion that the cost of adjusting the computer occurred to the officials at this House without the Department raising it. I do not believe that. I am not a child. I am not a fool. If the Cathaoirleach and staff of this House by themselves said, "Oh my goodness. This could involve a change to the computer system which might cost money", we would have big trouble in this House. The truth is as I articulated earlier, that the Department made the point that it would have to change its computer system and this House then acted on foot of that representation. The Minister may say it was not pressurised. If that is the point that was made-----”
“It is also a trampling on a bona fide effort to make sure that when we make laws, minorities are protected in the way in which those laws are put into effect. On a point of order, I want to tell the Leas-Chathaoirleach that. I am not trying to bully anybody but I am saying that I am not going to participate in a legislative farce when the Department of justice - a Department for which I have the greatest admiration - comes to the Chair of this House and says to get rid of this amendment because it involves a charge on the Exchequer. I was shocked this morning to hear that was the basic reason offered, and I only got this letter this morning. It is not sustainable and it is dishonest. It is a dishonest reason for not introducing a basic fairness and accountability measure into this legislation, if it is enacted.”
“I am not trying to bully anybody but it is so unstateable, unfair, wrong and anti-democratic that I cannot just sit here and come to my amendment and be told politely that it is out of order. Do the Chair and Clerk want me to be removed from the House by ushers? Is that what people want or are they willing to be honest in the rulings that are given here and admit that there is no possibility of excluding an amendment of this kind on the spurious grounds that it imposes a charge on the Exchequer? That is what I want to say. The Leas-Chathaoirleach can do anything she likes but every single point in today's procedure is going to be the subject of ultimate obstruction until I receive basic fairness. I have always been respectful to the Chair in this House and this is a trampling on my rights.”
“I am not prepared to go down the road of discussing extending police powers until we sort this out. Can this House demand that a record which prevents racial profiling be kept by gardaí who deploy this power? I am in favour of stop and search powers. I have no problem with them. However, I want it to be known clearly that they are or are not being disproportionately applied to particular cohorts of the community in a discriminatory way. I know, because I have been in this House for ten years and in the Dáil for donkey's years before that, I have been Minister for Justice and I have been Tánaiste, that this application has been made in utmost bad faith. I will not allow, as far as I can do it, the proceedings this morning to progress in any way unless this ruling is withdrawn. I am sorry to say that.”
“I am ashamed that the Department approached the Chair of this House to exclude my amendment on the basis that it would impose a charge in the Exchequer. It does not impose a charge on the Exchequer. If the Garda has to fiddle around with the PULSE system to accommodate it, so be it. Any report requires paper and biros, and records to be kept. I do not even say in my amendment that it has to be electronically recorded in PULSE. It can be on a separate piece of paper put in a separate ledger in the Garda station, if necessary. It is in the utmost bad faith for the Department to attempt to exclude this amendment by perverting the rules of this House, which are designed to stop me interfering with the budgetary rights of the Government to control the Exchequer. It is the utmost bad faith. I am staggered by what has been suggested.”
“I have sat where this Minister sits and I have never attempted to abuse the rules of the House to prevent a totally defensible and intelligent requirement in relation to a police power, one which requires no extra effort on the part of the garda filling out the report the Minister wants to be filled out to protect people from racial profiling, which is what we are dealing with here. To say that to require this extra line of data would be to impose a charge on the Exchequer is about as ridiculous as saying that it might use up biro ink or more paper. It is completely indefensible. What is worse, and I am sorry to say this, it has been asked of the Chair of this House to rule out my amendment in bad faith.”
“However, if we are being asked to extend Garda powers to stop and search people on the street in the manner that this Bill is proposing to do, and the ruling that has been handed to me says that, among the details required to be recorded for every such deployment, you may not make the Bill clearly state that the Garda shall also tick a box saying this is a black person, a white person, a Traveller or an immigrant of whatever kind, there will be no protection for minorities at all. The point I am making is this. I have been in politics since 1987.”
“The reason I am doing that is, and the Members and, in particular, staff of the House should know this, that in Britain you are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched if your skin colour is black or brown. Under English equality law and the UK Police and Criminal Evidence Act, guidelines are laid down which require records to be kept of the ethnic status of people who are the subject of these powers being deployed so as to show to the public that the law is or is not being fairly, impartially and in a non-discriminatory way applied in the way intended by parliament. I normally accept the rulings of this House without question. Sometimes they are a bit dotty but I do not mind.”
“I spoke to the Cathaoirleach about his letter. I am told that this ruling was sought by the Department of justice and the reason it was sought was that it was alleged that the PULSE system, a very clunky system, at present is configured in a way which might require an extra line to be inserted in it, and that this might cost money. I will say one thing to the Cathaoirleach. The Standing Orders of this House do not permit my amendment to be ruled out in this way. That is a bit like saying that if you take a record, more paper or a biro might be required. I am simply asking that a record of the ethnic status of people who are stopped and searched be made part of the record made by gardaí who stop people in the street and search them.”
“26 in my name adds the following additional subparagraph: "such particulars of the racial, ethnic, nationality or status of the person or persons stopped and searched as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister." I got a letter then from the Cathaoirleach stating the amendment had been ruled out, in other words, we cannot discuss the idea that there would be a record of the ethnic status of people searched. Why? Let me read the letter again. It states that amendment No. 26 has the potential to impose a charge on the Revenue and must be ruled out in accordance with Standing Order 42. It continues that amendment No. 28 is consequential on amendment No. 26, which requires this to be the subject of report, and must consequentially also be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Order 42.”
“(2) A record made under subsection (1) shall contain the following information: (a) where known, the name, address and date of birth of the person or, as the case may be, the driver of the vehicle concerned; (b) the time and date of the search; (c) the reason or reasons for the search; (d) the provision of this Part under which the search was conducted; (e) the outcome of the search including, where a search results in the seizure of a relevant article or evidence relating to the commission of an offence, the article or evidence concerned That is what the Minister proposes should be the record of every stop and search. Amendment No.”
“If, for instance, black people or Muslims or whoever else are being stopped and searched inordinately often - including in this country, members of the Traveller community - there is a record of the ethnic status of the people who are stopped and searched so that the public knows how stop and search powers are implemented. This is a basic requirement of democratic accountability and transparency. If the House looks at the Minister's proposals, section 13 states: (1) A member who carries out a search under section 9 or 10 of a person or a vehicle shall, in accordance with this section, make a record of the search.”
“No, I am sorry, I am making a point of order. I am making it very clear to the Leas-Cathaoirleach that, as far as I am concerned, this Committee Stage does not proceed until the point I am dealing with is resolved satisfactorily. I am not going to co-operate with anything. There is going to be a vote on everything. I wish to explain to the House why that is. Amendment No. 26 in my name requires gardaí who stop and search people, in addition to the requirements to make a record which are provided for in section 12 of the Bill, to record the ethnicity and status of the person who has been stopped and searched. This is the law in Northern Ireland. It is the law in all the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. It is the means whereby policy forces are transparent.”
“On a point of order, I received a letter today signed by the Cathaoirleach, which said that amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 26 in my name are being ruled out. I want to explain to the House that this a matter of fundamental democratic importance. Amendment No. 26, as the House will see, refers to a requirement that gardaí who deploy stop and-----”
“On the distribution of gardaí, although it is welcome to see them on public streets and the like, and I fully endorse the policy of getting gardaí outside desks and civilianising the non-essential functions, the simple fact is that the people have been made commitment after commitment that An Garda Síochána's strength would increase each of those commitments has failed. That is not due to a lack of political desire but the chronic problem that afflicts this State, which is the failure of the Executive to implement the policies governments are elected to put in place.”
“We needed people who were going to drive the increase with vigour, people who brought the reserve up to nearly 1,200 and people who, over two years or three years, increased the number of An Garda Síochána, as I said, from 11,800 to 14,200. That required effort. It required building a new centre in Templemore. That was done by Duggan contractors in 13 months because then Secretary General of my Department, Mr. Sean Alyward, put his back behind that project. I am saying now that talk is good enough, promises are good enough and targets are good enough. I am not against any of those things, but I am saying this: delivery is essential. An Garda Síochána is slipping in terms of the number of gardaí compared with the number of people in the population.”
“There are issues there. Plans to recruit more were announced but the results are not there on the ground. I strongly believe An Garda Síochána needs to be invested in. Its membership needs to be expanded. I have no doubt that keeping people, by raising the retirement age and the recruitment age, is a good idea, but all of these things can only be translated into real change if they are driven from the top. They were driven from the top when I was Minister and I will tell the Minister of State why. In the first week of my appointment, one civil servant said to me that if I delivered on the commitment, which we did deliver on, to increase the number of gardaí by 2,000, there would be an increase in reported crime. I always remember being told that across the desk. I said that kind of mentality is the wrong mentality.”
“The Civil Defence's membership has gone down by roughly half, from approximately 5,000 to 2,500. There are huge problems in the State in keeping its security forces and the people who volunteer and serve our State in station and working hard. I will not run down what has been achieved, but the figures per head of the population and the amount of members who are available across the country have increased by tiny numbers. I saw recently a Member of Dáil Éireann welcoming the addition of one garda to his local area. That shows how difficult it is to increase the number of gardaí. In addition to the number of full-time members of An Garda Síochána, when we introduced the Garda Síochána legislation in my term of office we recruited reservists. The number of reservists, in 2014, was 1,124. Today, it is one less than 300.”
“There are serious questions to be asked about this. Our population has gone up and successive political parties have promised that they are going to recruit 3,000 or 5,000 extra gardaí. These promises have been made but none of them have been delivered on. It is good to hear a target of 15,000 for this year but if you look at the number of retirements versus the number of intakes, and four intakes this year of 250 each is the target, that is a gross increase of 1,000, which will probably translate into a net increase of maybe 700 or 800 at the most. We are not keeping up with our responsibilities. This is not only an issue that affects An Garda Síochána. It also affects the whole question of retaining people in the service of the State. Our Army is supposed to have a strength of 11,800. It is approximately 7,800 now.”
“Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit anocht. Very few things have been said here with which I could possibly disagree. The motion is one I firmly support, but I want to bring some reality to some of the political debate we have had because we now have, as was said here, a massive growth in population. When I was made Minister for justice in 2002, there were 3.9 million people in Ireland. There is now 5.46 million. The number of gardaí for each citizen was one for 330 when I became Minister and it is now one for 378, so we are slipping. It is interesting to note that the number of gardaí was 14,412 in 2008, the year after I left office having reformed Templemore and increased dramatically the facilities there to increase recruitment and training, but 18 years later it is 14,425. Why has that happened?”
“We trust their courts; they should trust our courts. They should not in those circumstances seek to impose, in the interests of capital investment in Ireland, the right to have decisions foisted upon the Irish people against the wishes of the Irish Legislature.”
“This Bill proposes to give investors in Canada and Ireland, but particularly Canadian investors, the right to tell Ireland what to do, even if our Legislature and Government differ from their views. This is an elevation of capital investment to an unnecessary height. It is conferring on it status on a pedestal, which is unnecessary. The following point is hugely important. It is not in our interests to do this for the reason I am about to outline. It may well be that Canadian investors would suspect that the Bulgarian Supreme Court might do them down. It is perhaps credible that they would suspect that many of the European states are not to be trusted as guarantors of investors' rights. However, the point is that Ireland has an existing comparative advantage because the Canadians trust us and, as the Supreme Court stated, we trust them.”
“That is a disgraceful basis on which to legislate in haste without addressing the points that I am raising and the other grave and dangerous pitfalls implicit in this Bill that deserve to be carefully considered during further debate in this House. There are many reasons for this House to fulfil its function to carefully scrutinise this Bill and to avoid any guillotine being imposed in the context of its passage. I hope to return to those issues on subsequent Stages of this House's consideration of the legislation. Globalisation has gone so far, but the defences against globalisation are the granular defences established by nation states in their constitutions.”
“The likely outcome is that we would be told that this section is inoperable as a matter of European law. If it is not part of our ratification, section 25A is virtually worthless as a guarantor of Irish juridical sovereignty. I do not hear from the Minister of State or the Government any proposal whatsoever to add to Ireland's ratification of this treaty an exception protocol or reservation of the kind suggested by this amendment to the 2010 Act. The Government proposes to subvert our constitutional independence with a rickety and threadbare circumvention of the pure meaning of CETA in order to permit Ireland to ratify CETA during its Presidency and to satisfy Canadian interests on the occasion of premier Mark Carney's forthcoming visit to Ireland.”
“Far from preserving Irish juridical sovereignty, the provisions of the new section 25A would render it extremely likely to be swept aside later at EU court level. Unfortunately, the safety valve proposed in Mr. Justice Hogan's judgment is probably worthless if disapproved of by the European Union and by its courts. Nor are we informed - and this is an important point - as to whether the reservation embodied in section 25A will be explicitly provided for in Ireland's ratification process, whether by means of some protocol or reservation. I draw the Minister of State's attention to the minority judgment of Mr. Justice Charleton, at paragraphs 61 and 62, where he, very credibly, states that any suggestion that Ireland's invocation of section 25A would trump the decision of the arbitral courts is lacking in credibility.”
“Oisin Suttle of Maynooth University's department of law has observed, Ireland is subject to EU law in relation to its obligations under CETA. Only Canada or the EU as a whole can terminate CETA. In his words, "It is Ireland’s choice to be bound by the treaty but once bound, it will take the EU and its member states, acting together, to terminate it." Even if the treaty were terminated, obligations in relation to investors and being subject to the investment court system would remain in place for a further 20 years. The fundamental problem with assuming that amending the Arbitration Act to permit non-enforcement on constitutional order grounds is that the ECJ would very likely rule against such a decision by the Irish court.”
“I believe that the Bill is fraudulent insofar as Ireland would, if it ratifies CETA, be bound by any subsequent decision of the European Court of Justice, ECJ, as to whether invocation by Ireland of its constitutional order was a permissible basis for non-implementation of an award. The folly of assuming that the Irish courts would be autonomous in such circumstance to determine such an issue and would not be subject to being overruled by the ECJ is obvious. Under Article 29 of the Constitution any ECJ ruling that Ireland might not invoke its constitutional order as grounds for non-enforcement of an arbitral award would be binding on the State and on the Supreme Court. If the ECJ decided this ground was not valid, we would have to surrender it. As Dr.”
“Those grounds find some reflection, but not adequate reflection, in the proposed section 25A to be inserted in the Arbitration Act 2010. This Bill is grossly defective, and probably deliberately so, in that the recasting of paragraph 235 of Mr. Justice Hogan's judgment is reduced to the following ground for unenforceability, namely that the award would compromise "the constitutional order of the State". That ground is utterly vague and unexplained. Does it mean, for instance, that a decision by the Oireachtas which affected any Canadian investment adversely by statute would always trump or defeat an arbitral court award under CETA? What is the constitutional order of the State?”
“Justice Gerard Hogan, which commanded majority but not unanimous support in the Supreme Court, to the effect that the amendment of the Arbitration Act 2010 to permit the High Court to render any awards made by the arbitral court or by the appeal arbitral court provided for in CETA unenforceable if enforcing the award would compromise "the constitutional identity of the State or fundamental principles of our constitutional order" or "our obligation to give effect to EU law ... and to preserve its coherence and integrity". At paragraph 235 of the Hogan judgment, it is suggested that the Irish courts could render unenforceable any such decision which is "at odds in some material way with the legislative juridical autonomy of the State".”
“This Bill and the ratification of CETA are wholly unnecessary for the promotion of tariff-free trade between Ireland and Canada or, indeed, between Ireland and Chile. It is dishonest to suggest otherwise. When former Deputy Patrick Costello challenged the proposal to ratify CETA, I fully supported him. The Supreme Court, by majority, ruled that the proposed ratification was unconstitutional. Currently, 17 EU member states have ratified CETA, while ten, including Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Slovenia, have not. The grossly offensive part of this Bill is that it seeks to permit Ireland to ratify a treaty on foot of a passage in one of the judgments of the Supreme Court, that of Mr.”
“I welcome the Minister of State. I want to put on record my total opposition to the passage of this legislation. I believe it to be unnecessary, legally dishonest and potentially calamitous for Irish interests. As a preliminary point, I wish to state that I do not believe any Irish interest is served by our ratification of CETA. The free-trade elements of CETA have already been in operation for nine years. In that time, Irish exports to Canada have quadrupled and Canadian exports to Ireland have increased from €3 billion to €10 billion annually. What is at issue here is the loss of sovereignty in respect of the protection of investors via a court system which would have the capacity to overrule decisions of the Irish courts.”
“It provides that: "A person shall not sell by retail, or cause to be sold by retail, a nicotine consumption product to a child." It does not stop a 17-year-old or an 18-and-a-half-year-old from going in and buying the half the shop and giving it to 15-year-olds directly outside the premises. Is that okay? Is it okay for a 15-year-old to ask an 18-and-a-half-year-old to go and buy a month's supply of vaping products? We really have to think this through. The Minister of State is in the embarrassing position, if I may say that, of having two Bills in the pipeline, of which this is one. I really do think we have to look around a few corners and ask ourselves whether this Bill is in a fit condition to be passed in its present form, even if something else more serious is coming down the tracks. I will leave it at that.”
“There is a shop at the top of upper Merrion Street, which seems to be a vape shop alone. I am always struck by the fact that they can pay a rent and carry on a business right in the city centre, apparently in circumstances where they could avail of section 26A(7). I really wonder if we actually want to say that the ban on advertising leaflets and the like does not apply to websites exclusively dealing with vaping products. We will have to look at that on Committee Stage. There is another point I want to make in my limited time. Section 28B deals with supply.”
“Section 26A(7) provides that: "This section shall not apply to a premises or a website (or otherwise online) which wholly comprises the sale of nicotine inhaling products or mainly comprises the sale of nicotine inhaling products, provided that the only other products sold at that premises or from that website (or otherwise online) are— (a) nicotine consumption products, (b) vapes, (c) vaping substances, or (d) accessories related to the functioning or maintenance of nicotine inhaling products or vapes."." What are we doing here? We are saying that the prohibition on advertising, provided for in subsection (2) of the same section 26A, through circulars, leaflets, pamphlets and brochures does not apply to somebody who specialises in the sale of vaping products. I can see what it says but I do not know what the logic behind it is.”
“It is for the very simple reason that if it is legalised, an 18-year-old can get it and give it to a 14-year-old. The qualities of cannabis, the psychological and psychiatric effects, are very serious. The Minister of State is proposing to bring in further legislation on this matter. I know this is highly qualified, and very unusually qualified, by the European dimension, which is strange indeed. The Italian Government has complained about Ireland to the Commission so we are on thin enough ice, or a tightrope, before we start. I would just like to point out a few things about the Public Health (Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products) (Amendment ) Bill 2026, particularly in page 23, subsection (7), which deals with licensees' obligations.”
“I welcome the Minister of State. Clearly this is a complex issue. It is complicated by European law and by the points that have just been made about adults, children and the like. It is complicated by the concept that, while tobacco consumption as a way of getting nicotine is manifestly worse for health than vaping is, nobody knows really what the long-term consequences of vaping actually are. As a general point, there is confusion in this society on the part of those people who want to legalise cannabis on the one hand and, at the same time, wipe out tobacco consumption. There is a very strong correlation between consumption of tobacco and of cannabis. When I was Minister for justice, I had to wrestle with the problem. People asked me why, since I was a liberal, I did not allow people smoke cannabis.”
“The sooner we face up to the fact that it allows decent prison spaces to be built, with a variety of regimes and with football fields and things like that in it where prisoners can rehabilitate and where there is space for people not to be overcrowded, once we do that, we will bring about a very major improvement. The Irish Penal Reform Trust is right that building prisons is not the answer. I agree with the Minister that it is not the answer in itself. If we pretend, though, that we can carry on in the circumstances condemned by the Inspector of Prisons, so roundly condemned by him, that things can carry on as they are and people can be released into society who are committing very serious offences, public opinion will not stand for it. With that in view, I will make the final point that I support the building of Thornton Hall.”
“Likewise, the population of people in the criminal cohort, which is usually 25-40, has also increased. I am not making any racial or other slur of that kind, but there are conditions now in Ireland where our demography is such that we will need extra prison spaces. There is no avoiding it. It seems to me that in those circumstances, we have to get ahead with building Thornton Hall. If the Leas-Chathaoirleach will give me 20 seconds, I will make one last point about Thornton Hall. It was cancelled due to the crash. It was reinstated in 2010. It is now part of the Government’s programme to do it in 2026. Therefore, 20 years after it was agreed to do it, it is still on the drawing board but is part of official policy.”
“It could dramatically improve the north inner city if it was developed for housing instead of being used as a prison campus. It is not worth preserving. Whatever people say about its historic characteristics, it should be demolished. No person should be incarcerated in Mountjoy Prison. I pay tribute to successive governors there, not least Eddie Mullins, a recent governor. The inspector pays tribute to them all of recent times. They have courageously fought to improve conditions for prisoners in the pre-Dickensian conditions in that place. If the population has increased to the extent it has, we also have to bear in mind the sentences and incidence of sentencing for sexual offences, be it rape or historical sexual abuse cases, have dramatically increased.”
“With the population increase, the Minister said, and I agree with him completely, that every possible way of saving people from prison has to explored, be it the drugs court or any reasonable system. At one stage I proposed, and this House enacted, a system whereby people could be fined immediately and told they could serve a sentence if they misbehaved in the following period of time. Unfortunately our Judiciary said that was unconstitutional. I was trying to create a situation where people did not simply get off scot-free but at the same time had something held over them to ensure they would behave in future. A Minister for justice at any time faces disappointments of that kind. Mountjoy Prison is a 14-acre campus.”
“The Central Mental Hospital simply does not to do that at all. It is not in the business of looking at psychiatrically ill prisoners and dealing with them on a day-to-day basis. It sees itself as having a different function. In relation to where the future lies, mention was made of drugs in prison. The then Governor of Mountjoy said if there are drugs outside there will be drugs inside. That is not good enough. It was a shameful statement to make because a system like ours should have drug-free areas and mandatory testing for people who want to have a lighter regime to be in a drug-free environment. Instead of that, young people in particular, whether they do or do not have a drug habit or addiction, are shoved into a place where it is almost obligatory to take drugs. It is a shame.”
“That was to be financed by the sale of 29 acres at Shanganagh Castle in south Dublin. We got €30 million from private developers and Dún Laoghaire county council. We applied that in a process where we advertised and sought land in north County Dublin which would be available for the process. We nearly secured an 80-acre site but unfortunately that fell through. Eventually, the advertisements led to somebody tendering 150 acres at Thornton Hall which was then zoned as agricultural land. That land at Thornton Hall was the subject of major works and a significant investment. A lot of money was put into developing the access road and carrying out works preparatory to it being used for a new prison. This is very important: it would have accommodated proper psychiatric facilities for prisoners.”
“Mountjoy Prison, which the Minister has visited, and I presume Senator Fitzpatrick has done so too, is incapable of providing a prison system which is both deterrent and rehabilitative and functions on a proper basis. It should be demolished. Towards that end, when I was Minister for justice, I acquired an extra acre where Egan's Cash and Carry was on the North Circular Road. There are 14 acres there which are prime development land to rehabilitate the North inner city. The women's prison is massively overcrowded. The situation - let us be honest - is that if somebody goes in, somebody goes out because there is literally no extra space in that institution. There have been a lot of misconceptions about Thornton Hall. When I was Minister for justice, the Government promised me €30 million to acquire a site for a prison.”