Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

It is, but I will not suggest what the Supreme Court had in mind. However, the intention is to be able to make findings which could be good or bad.

I do not believe I have left out anything else. I thank Senator Mullen for his contribution and his amendment. I genuinely believe the amendment I have fits the policy as intended from the year long deliberation involving some of the best legal people coming in to discuss the matter with the all-party committee. The intent was to include in the mix the notion of balancing rights; it is not to oust the courts. The courts are in place to vindicate rights not only Article 40.3 rights, but other rights of the Constitution and our international obligations to fair procedures. They are in place.

My fear relates to the other side of things and one of the Deputies in the other House referred to it. My fear is not that the legislation would push people's rights but that, ultimately, it might not be robust enough in not going down the route of having lawyers in and causing difficulty. However, we will see how that works out in practice. If people engage with it in a fair way and are supportive, it will be an important new development for the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, it will not be the modus operandi in all cases. The 1921 Act inquiry system will still be available if ever it is used again. We will also have the new investigation committees which effectively conducted the Cloyne report. This would represent a new power and vehicle if the people support it and for this reason I do not support the amendment.