We will not be opposing any of the Minister's amendments as they are broadly technical but I have to say, it is a huge pity he does not practice what he preaches in relation to this Bill. He was on the total opposite of this debate when he was sitting in a different part of this Chamber - with Government but against it. Once the Minister got the seal of office, he changed tack totally and that is a fact. We can read the record. A paper that is read a lot more in the Minister's constituency than in mine is The Irish Times. The former head of the civil juries division of the High Court, the former judge, Mr. Justice Bernard Barton, has written in the paper today. I am sure the Minister has read it or it has been brought to his attention. Getting rid of the process by which these trials are done by jury has no basis really from what the concern was. We are stripping the litigant of the right to choose the mode of trial by which the facts of the action are to be decided and also striking down the fundamental principle at the heart of our legal system by removing the jury. This requirement for fairness in law and the use of juries is as old as justice itself but for some reason, despite the Minister's own personal views not that long ago, his current views are completely contradictory. The Minister calls it compromise. I would prefer it if the Minister had conviction and stood by what he actually believes in. There is a deeper concern as to his conviction and why he does not stand by what he believes in, particularly as he is the Minister for justice. A Minister without conviction holding that portfolio is deeply worrying and troubling. The Minister has stated on the record of this House that he is of a completely different view. The explanation for continuing with and justifying this is even more bizarre, particularly when we consider that the justice committee unanimously went against it and that the premise set out in the Department of justice's report on which the abolition is founded was swept away by Supreme Court's decision in the Higgins case in 2022. I do not know why the Minister is under so much pressure in his Department or within Government to continue going down this road. This is the last opportunity for him to change what is involved here. This is a step in the wrong direction. The Minister is not doing or is not pushing for the right thing. Unfortunately, that says an awful lot about him as a Minister. He was vehemently opposed to this previously, but now, despite the Supreme Court's decision in 2022, he is bringing it in. That is an issue for me when it comes to his conviction as Minister. If that is going to be the mark of his Ministry, then it gives rise to concerns in respect of a number of matters beyond this Bill.

Sentiment score: -0.01

Yes.

Sentiment score: 0.40

Agreed.

Sentiment score: 0.27

Why did the Minister change his mind?

Sentiment score: 0.00

So the Minister is bringing in legislation he does not agree with.

Sentiment score: -0.28

You do not agree with it.

Sentiment score: -0.28

That is fair enough.

Sentiment score: 0.32

No, we have said our bit.

Sentiment score: -0.30