Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

The decision referred to is worthy of referral with regard to its constitutional significance. With respect, the Minister of State is making matters worse by saying that he has achieved textual consistency.

I repeat my charge with regard to the amendment. It is much better to set out the orders separately and with clarity. The question arises of whether imperfections are being included. If, for example, an order was imperfect or struck down, was it in force? A difficulty exists in terms of flawed text such as "in force at the time" because an ambiguity is created as to what is being specified and dealt with in the legislation. It does not help matters to suggest that, because a defect surfaced elsewhere but managed to survive for the day, it will work in this case.

If the Minister of State wishes to extricate himself from this difficulty and achieve more constitutional consistency, he should opt for constitutional conservatism rather than what he calls best legislative practice and seek clarity rather than what he calls textual consistency. In terms of the justification offered, textual consistency simply says that because we got away with it on one occasion, we can get away with it again. However, I suggest that is not correct.

I am a political scientist who knows that apart from the fact that they should be brief, constitutions should, at their core, be certain. If one wants to be certain, one must be clear in legislation. I, therefore, urge the Minister of State to be compliant and to accept the amendment I have proposed.

See this speech in context