May I say on the general principle I quite agree with what Senator Hearne said on the Second Stage that the Houses of the Oireachtas are superior to the courts in so far as the Houses devise the law and the courts interpret it? When the courts have interpreted the law, it is extremely bad practice that a Parliament should come along and reverse a decision to the detriment of the persons who had benefited by the interpretation given in the courts. That is what is objected to. There is no question but that we are superior to the courts as far as making the law is concerned.
One other point. It is not a question of the landlord or the tenant. It is not a question of any section, rich or poor, landlord or tenant who get something from the courts. It is generally felt by most lawyers and by nearly all constitutionists that such a person would be allowed to retain the rights he has got from the particular court decision and that any amendment of the law which purports to put the law back into the position it was meant to be in should only apply to subsequently tried cases.
I feel that in Section 3 the Minister has effected a compromise. He has left the decision to a person who got the decision. He endeavoured to make in this section changes which will mean that the decision will not weigh too heavily on the person who lost the particular case. From that point of view it does seem to be a reasonable compromise. When I say that I am, unlike Senator O'Reilly, a person without practical knowledge of the courts as they work.