Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I take on board what the Minister of State has said. Obviously, we heard from a wide range of opinions, including members of the committee. It is like a court of law. It is like saying that if a man was accused of manslaughter or murder, the case should be tried in public but that if he wanted it to be held in private, he could make an application and the courts would have to hold it privately. We know what would happen in such a case. In the context of the valid points made, the difference is that many people who will appeal will win their case - we have seen the statistics - whether it be in terms of the additional information required or because the wrong determination was made originally.

The issue of dissuading people from appealling or maintaining the confidentially of commercially sensitive information for businesses is dealt with in subsection (2). I imagine it relates to commercial information for a business. That issue is covered in subsection (2)(c), while paragraph (d) covers protecting an individual's right to respect for his or her private and family life. I do not know how we will review this aspect because if 98 of 100 cases in the next 12 months are held in camera, does that mean that we should say this is not working? My view is that we should do it the other way around because the appeal commissioners should ensure the five provisions set out which allow them to provide for the holding of a session in camerashould be used. That would be more beneficial because we would be reviewing subsection (2) as it was originally envisaged. If it is not working and are cases in which sensitive information should not be released or people request a hearing in camerafor legitimate reasons, we should review it. I hope I am wrong, but I can imagine that the vast majority of people who will make appeals will seek, as is their legal right, to have them conducted in private.