Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I oppose section 4. We have the advantage of the helpful advice received from the Minister of State's office of his views on our amendments. The Minister of State expressed surprise that I oppose this section. He recounted my comments made last week that we must respond to the Supreme Court judgment, which we do. However, needing to respond to the Supreme Court judgment and how we respond to it are different matters.

In a recent Supreme Court case, a written submission was made but not argued orally in court concerning the retrospective nature of the type of statutory instrument mentioned in section 4. On November 28, the Supreme Court judgment found against the appellants. This is my concern about section 4, namely, the retrospective nature of what we are attempting. Obviously, the Government and the Minister of State must respond once the Supreme Court adjudicates, but how we respond is what is being debated in respect of this amendment. This effort to put everything in order retrospectively, to correct with one stroke of the pen difficulties which would have arisen and to make right issues which may have been wrong, is something about which we must be concerned.

The power we are giving the Minister of State and the Government through the introduction of section 4 is excessive and is not the only necessary response to the Supreme Court judgment. If Members excuse the pun, it is certainly a rush to judgment.