Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

The arrangements in section 35, to which I have just referred, are designed to ensure that fair procedures and natural justice are respected. Persons who are to be named in reports are to be notified and given an opportunity to have changes or corrections made where they believe fair procedures were not respected. Persons may seek an order from the High Court to require changes to or the deletion of certain material. It is important to stress that failure to observe fair procedures is the basis for seeking changes. Changes may not be sought merely because a named person does not like the details of a report even where those details are supported by the evidence. A report may give details about a named person where to do so is in accordance with evidence and where fair procedures are respected.

Section 35 seeks to find a balance between the need to respect fair procedures and the need to ensure that investigations are completed in a timely fashion. As Senator Tuffy said, there are two options. Section 35 seeks to ensure that the publication of reports is not delayed unreasonably by persons who do not like the conclusions reached even where those are justified by the evidence. While section 35 gives a person the right — which we cannot limit in legislation like this where a person's constitutional right to his or her good name may be at stake — to bring a matter before the High Court, we must be careful to remember that in this Bill we are attempting to reduce recourse to legal avenues. Well intentioned though it is, the amendment seeks to introduce a new opportunity to bring a matter to the High Court and creates the potential for further delay and, perhaps, obstruction.

I am sure this is not Senator Tuffy's intention, but the amendment if accepted would serve to tip the balance in favour of those with an interest in delaying the work of a commission and preventing the publication of its report. I am not in a position, therefore, to accept the amendment.