Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I agree with what Senator Paddy Burke said about deceased former Members. The late Farrell McElgunn, a former Senator and MEP, departed this life in March as well. Ar dheis Dé go raibh sé.

It was reported, a Chathoirligh agus a Threoraí, that the Cabinet on Tuesday approved the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2020, under which terms a witness would no longer be required to swear before God or to make an affirmation when filing an affidavit. What is proposed instead is that people will be able to make a statement of truth remotely. This was said by the Law Society to be welcome because it would put an end to what it called the "embarrassing" practice of a witness having to indicate his or her religious faith when making an affidavit. I disagree with the welcome given to this proposal because it attacks genuine pluralism by depriving people swearing an affidavit of the option of making a solemn oath. What we should do is recommend by all means, if we must, the introduction of a statement of truth but in addition to an oath or affirmation. In a similar way we found a very good arrangement in the Seanad whereby, instead of the prayer as Gaeilge and in English, we start with 30 seconds of silence, which is a very appropriate way to recognise that all Members, of all faiths and none, approach their duties here in a solemn and respectful fashion. Indeed, in the absence of an oath or affirmation, the question of making a legally sanctionable statement of truth is a meaningless formula anyway because the law can simply provide for the prosecution of those who knowingly make false statements or averments in affidavits. The effort is further weakened by providing that all this could be done remotely, without a person having to present before a solicitor or notary public to make this statement of truth. This is all rather badly thought through. This measure ignores a genuine lack of pluralism that exists whereby judges and Presidents are required to make a religious oath. What is happening here, perhaps, is an attempt to anticipate the creation of some kind of one-size-fits-all formula for these cases as well. It is not good public policy to regard religious belief or lack thereof as an exclusively private matter. What we have here is a weakening of the atmosphere of solemnity and a failure to recognise that the dignity and seriousness of the State have always been bolstered by references to those questions of ultimate meaning. They have buttressed the rule of law in this country, whatever views or outlooks on those questions of ultimate meaning people have.