Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

It is a case that the person is of a criminal nature and could commit any offence. I recommend the Tánaiste goes back to the drawing board. I see his point and I support the idea but to suggest that a chief superintendent having a general view that an applicant for bail would commit any offence in the future and regarding this as evidence of the fact, is turning the English language on its head. Is there not a case for saying that if the chief superintendent expresses an opinion on the basis of the past record of the applicant that he is likely to commit further offences, that this opinion will be taken into account? Is this what we are trying to get at? Trying to suggest that this opinion is hard evidence does not stand up in logic. There is a danger that if we put together law that does not stand up in logic, some bright lawyer will find loopholes in it and have it overturned on constitutional grounds or otherwise. I am merely suggesting a reformulation to achieve the effect which the Tánaiste undoubtedly wishes to achieve and which I support.

See this speech in context