Mr. Simon McGarr:

There is a current and leading case from the Supreme Court in relation to the use of words used by the Oireachtas to try to convey meaning, as opposed to the actual text in relation to those things. That is Crilly v. T and J Farrington Ltd. It is a 2001 case, but it was recently endorsed by Mr. Justice MacMenamin in a case of 2022. Therefore, it is quite recently endorsed. I should read from Statutory Interpretation in Ireland, authored by David Dodd and Michael Cush. It states:

Ireland has the distinction of refusing to follow the modern trend [in other common law jurisdictions]. Following the Supreme Court decision in Crilly, the use of such material as an aid to interpretation of domestic enactments is impermissible. [There is a record] held that the disadvantages of using parliamentary history as an aid in interpretation do not merit a change in the exclusionary rule...