Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I mentioned this section earlier when talking about amendment No. 5. This obviously clarifies that the ombudsman may require witnesses to attend before him or her to be examined or cross-examined on oath or affirmation. This comes from the judgment we referred to in the case that involved the Workplace Relations Act 2015. It was found that the procedures were unsatisfactory in that cross-examination of witnesses of the opposing party is fundamental to the fair procedures guaranteed under Article 40.3 of the Constitution. It is obvious that cross-examination of witnesses is fundamental to the concept of fair procedures. We talked about fair procedures.

The original 2017 Act contains several provisions that recognise the quasi-judicial role of the FSPO. The decision in the Zalewksi case has required such bodies to examine their processes and procedures and ensure consistency with the constitutional requirements. That is really the core function of the original legislation. However, my understanding is that cross-examining witnesses has always been a feature of oral hearings of the FSPO, without this being in legislation. I understand there has always been a stenographer present to take a transcript and cross-examine the other party's witnesses, and that has provided for the three-dimensional discussion. Can the Minister of State provide certainty that the amendments will not have an impact on the operations of the FSPO? The FSPO has been doing what I have described anyway in practice for quite a long period. Is putting the existing practice in legislation just to have a belt and braces so things will remain as normal within operations?

See this speech in context