Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)

I thank David for coming in and I am sorry for his loss. His advocacy has been incredible and there is no doubt the law is going to change. This is just about ensuring we get it pristine and right. This is what this format is for. I was taken by several of the submissions. These can sometimes be quite technical, and sometimes it is about the order in which things happen too. Many of the submissions are in that context. Merit can be seen in different ways in different submissions, but they cannot all work together so we have to figure out how they can all hang together. I appreciate what Mr. French said about this having to be based on conviction. Otherwise, the can of worms would open the possibility we would be unable to do this. We would not be able to bring about this legislation because it would almost certainly be unconstitutional, in my view. It is important to have this line and to know where it is. I can, morally, see the merit if it was someone being charged, but it would be impossible legally. There is the right to due process and all that.

I wish to ask Mr. French a couple of questions about what he said because I would like to tease it out a little bit more. In his few words, he mentioned "the mechanism by which the initiative passes from the criminal court where the verdict of murder or manslaughter is given to the family law court where guardianship would be suspended needs to be absolutely guaranteed and immune to interference". I would really like to tease out the phrase, "needs to be absolutely guaranteed and immune to interference". What does he mean by it?