Rónán Mullen (Independent)

She spoke very eloquently about the undeniable improvement that had been made to the Government's wording. I do not deny for a moment it is an improvement that there is an invocation of the need to have due regard to the principles of fair procedures. My amendment put the issue beyond doubt.

I invite the House to think of it in this way. One can widen the scope Members of the Oireachtas have to investigate matters and make findings adverse to people's reputations, among other findings. Given that politicians, for the most part, are not professionally trained to conduct such business, have relatively little experience in this area and are subject to certain temptations in terms of populism and partisanship, we ought not widen the scope of our potential for investigations and encroach in any way on the guarantees of fair procedures.

We can maintain the limited scope of our investigations to investigate into matters relating to policy or legislation and how they have worked, but we should stop short of making any kind of findings adverse to people's reputations, or their moral conduct at the very least. If we limited the scope of our potential investigations we might more easily consider the possibility of interfering with the level of guarantee of people's rights. When one does both one runs into trouble.

We are widening our capacity to make investigations and serious findings. Make no mistake about it, such findings will be ventilated in the public and will be very embarrassing for people. People will wonder why inquiries were allowed to make such findings against them if the same respect is not shown for the right to due process they would enjoy in other fora. That is the issue.

Expanding the scope of potential investigations that may be made by Members of these Houses and at the same time allowing any diminution of the level of guarantee of fair procedures is a dangerous cocktail. That is the essential problem. Perhaps the Minister has an answer to my question. What would happen if a witness before a future tribunal is in a position to pay for his or her legal advice and another is not? Will we tell such a person that as we are not paying for it we will not allow anyone to avail of it? What about a person with a stammer or extreme self-confidence problems who needs to be represented and would regard representation by an advocate as a fundamental right?

Perhaps the Minister has thought about these things. I regard these issues as important. I am providing examples within the limited time available. There are serious issues. There is a problem in terms of widening our powers while not allowing any diminution whatsoever in the respect and attention given to people's rights to due process and fair procedures. I cannot put it any more urgently than that.

I am glad the Minister and I have reached a position of mutual respect for each other's sincerity. I regret he cannot accept my amendment and I cannot support the Bill as it stands. My position is considered, not obstructive.