Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

Perhaps the Minister might advise as to the burden of proof. In the original text there is a definite requirement that the person not be in the State. Certain levels of proof should be required. Here the belief of the garda that the person is not in the State is accepted as evidence of the person not being in the State. The Minister is reducing the burden considerably. For a garda to say he or she may not be in the State will be admissible as evidence. I would have thought a requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person was not in the State was more suitable. The Minister is watering this down in the amendment to suggest that the person may not even be in the State. I ask him to clarify the level of burden in terms of the evidence required.

See this speech in context