Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I wish to respond to a commentary on the recent event of the release of the Rossport Five. A suggestion in yesterday's editorial in The Irish Times reads:

. . . [the] President of the High Court, stood alone in recent weeks in upholding the rule of law, a duty he executed with exemplary even-handedness and for which he deserves to be thanked. During this controversy too many people, and most regrettably several members of the Oireachtas, showed a lack of understanding, or were simply unwilling to accept, the proper separation of powers that underpins the correct relationship between the legislature and judiciary.

Many of us who have been here for a long time perfectly understand the separation of powers and the appropriate relationship that should apply between the Legislature and the Judiciary. It is a source of concern for both if decisions were taken in regard to resources policy that were improper, not within the terms of the Constitution or not legally in the best interest of the people. It is a matter for both to seek discovery as to why, in regard to resources policy, the 1975 regime was changed in favour of the 1987 regime which, in turn, was changed in 1992, when an Irish resource, the foreshore, which was in the ownership of the people, was given away.

It is also in our interests that the Judiciary should comment on the inadequacy in regard to rights that arise in European law for citizens to protect themselves against an unknown, unspecified and unquantified danger. That might have been an appropriate reflection on the part of the Judiciary. In regard to not only matters of safety but also matters of planning, a good warning might have been given in respect of the impropriety of Ministers and Ministers of State asking their colleagues to come together to sign documents — as I was invited to do and refused — to short-circuit the statutorily independent planning process. There are many matters that could have been commented on in regard to the separation of powers, including the appropriate behaviour of the Judiciary and Parliament.

As someone involved in law-making, I raise the appropriateness of issuing orders that do not have the full force of the law, for example, the giving of an injunction on a fragile basis to protect something that is illegal. Again, it is a matter for the Legislature and the Judiciary to examine the appropriate interpretation of Acts and orders under the Foreshore Act. I am sure the matter of the moving of the foreshore several kilometres inland will be of some consequence for historians. People will examine this issue and speculate. I am sure it is a matter in regard to which Madam in The Irish Times might decide to read some of the articles of the columnists who write in her newspaper and she might be better informed before she decides to give lectures on the separation of powers.

This is an appalling ugly little editorial which suggests in some way that while justice stood on behalf of five people who had to spend over 90 days in prison to protect themselves and their families in the absence of appropriate legislation and support for the law, there are those who would prefer if everyone in the State was rolling over with their bellies up so as to say the people who do not give a damn about justice are those who matter because they are siding up and is not justice great? There are many questions to be asked about the legality of this. I hope the issue is suitably resolved but I reject the disgraceful nonsense of this editorial comment. We are all legislators and are aware of the complexity of this issue. We all know how murky its background is and we would all like to see the air cleared.

See this speech in context