Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I am conscious of time and aware that we want to proceed with these sections. However, our debate on this section has been extremely useful because the more we debate it, the clearer it becomes that the proposed amendment No. 33 is a horse of an entirely different colour to the subsection as originally presented by the Minister. The original subsection was commented upon by, among others, the former Attorney General, John Rogers, who thought it unconstitutional.

The Minister has dressed the matter up rather well but it has become a completely differently animal. He is now proposing simply that a chief superintendent can give evidence which is admissible. That was not contained in the first draft of the Bill, which provided what was almost a trump card to the chief superintendent who could give his or her word and the court would act on it. The fear was that such a provision would undermine the constitutional ability of the court to make the determination. I am much happier with the present formulation, although I do not consider it a great advance. Dressed up though it is, I do not foresee many chief superintendents togging out, as the Minister put it, to make a case that a superintendent or inspector could make equally well in respect of serious matters. That will possibly happen in very serious cases to give the signal the Minister requires. I hope the phrase, "foreign papers please copy", will apply and that the fundamental change to this section is identified and understood outside this House.

See this speech in context