Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Obviously we would not have tabled the motion unless a group of us felt strongly on this issue, particularly on the infringement of human rights. I am motivated by a young man of 37 years of age who was at the forefront of this, as barristers often find themselves. His family is left without a valued member. We must stand over human rights. This country has had a proud and strong record of that. I am also motivated to some extent by the fact that we are members of the UN Human Rights Committee and also by our Presidency of the Council of the European Union. That puts a particular onus on us not to be intimidated by a letter from the Russian ambassador. I am not putting it too strongly to say it was intimidation.

I am also motivated by having been in Russia and observing there. Everybody in this Chamber will be aware of the manner in which, over the past 20 years we have seen the growth of the oligarchs where the assets of the country have been sequestered by a small elite. There is plenty of evidence that there is political involvement in that structure which is against the interests of the citizens of Russia. This is part of that.

I am also motivated by the fact that we in Ireland set the template, following the murder of Ms Veronica Guerin, that criminals who have benefited significantly financially from their crimes would not continue to benefit from their assets. The motion asks specifically that the same principle would apply in this international situation. I have listened to what Deputy Durkan said. I would be happy to amend the motion to remove the first paragraph, if it is felt that it is argumentative, and leave the rest of the motion as it is. Perhaps the first paragraph could be interpreted as being argumentative.

What we are doing is very much consistent with what other parliaments are doing. There are people here concerned about the threat in the letter to adoptions etc. I would not want to see that happening. That threat would be for the Government to consider, if we pass the motion, before it takes action on implementing it. This is a real litmus test for us, as I said last week, on where we stand on a glaring fundamental human rights issue.