Brendan Ryan (Labour)

Given the number of legislative measures the Supreme Court has thrown out after the advice of the Attorney General that they were constitutional, I would not get too carried away with that if I were the Minister. It is an extraordinarily roundabout way of doing something very simple. An affidavit is something which the courts have defined in a very precise way so as to ensure that what is in an affidavit is what somebody said. One is walking in to all manner of dangerous territory if one starts getting involved with video and sound recordings. I do not believe one can give a guarantee of integrity to a video or sound recording of the kind that is given in an affidavit. That is why the amendment provides that "any other mode of transmission" should include the ability to cross-examine. If a sound or video link is not live, it gives rise to all kinds of issues.

I cannot see the point of video or sound recordings unless they involve technical judgments, in which case they are better off written down. Our amendment satisfactorily encompasses what is in the Government proposal but leaves open the possibility of cross-examination. As it has been clear since we commenced this debate that it was the Government's intention not to accept any amendment, I do not propose to pursue this matter further.