Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)

I listened intently to the Minister's contribution in response to the points made by the speaker to my left, Deputy Carthy, and the speaker behind me, Deputy Mattie McGrath, but I did not hear him refer to what happened following the Higgins case. I have a simple question: why is he proceeding with the abolition when the law on which the proposal is based has subsequently been swept away by the Supreme Court in the Higgins case and replaced with guidelines on damages, which we clearly know are working? There have been genuine improvements. There has also been a Court of Appeal case based on the Supreme Court judgment in the Higgins case. To be honest, I do not get a sense that the Minister is committed to this change himself.

The Minister has referred to the fact that juries are often asked to leave the courtroom for discussion to take place on a point of law. Nobody is seeking to change that. There are often contested points of law and it is fine for them to be discussed between the legal teams and the judge. Juries can still leave on those grounds, but where it matters is when it comes to a judgment by a jury of one's peers. Could the Minister speak to the determination of the Supreme Court on the Higgins case? How has that not impacted on his own assessment?

See this speech in context