Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

As the Senator has said, this is a central part of the foundation upon which the Bill has been constructed. The section is important in so far as it sets out the approach which will be taken by the commission. The commission will be expected — and that is why the word "shall" is used — to seek the voluntary co-operation of all parties and is also expected to do all that is reasonable to bring that voluntary co-operation about. That may involve travel and if that is the case, so be it.

The proposed amendment would have the effect of diluting that requirement to facilitate the co-operation of witnesses. The result could be a major change in the whole basis of the Bill. I am not suggesting that this is the intention but, in fact, the outcome of the amendment may be just that. The legislation gives certain powers to the commission and requires the commission to seek voluntary co-operation. It expects that the commission will do all that is reasonable to bring that about. If that means travelling to Guernsey or Jersey — as in that case where a person was unwilling to deal with it, although I think the person has since passed away — and if that is the cost of getting to the truth quickly, that is the price that may have to be paid.

My advice, however, is that "shall" is a qualifying principle, and to substitute "may" would undermine the whole structure. For that reason the amendment is not being accepted. I accept that this is not the usual argument about using the word "shall" or "may".