Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There are contradictions in what both the Tánaiste and Deputy O'Callaghan have said. On the one hand they are making the argument that this will be an enormous burden of work for our hard-pressed District Court judges who are flat-out already; I accept that they are. However, on the other hand, they then say that the information is there anyway and people can get it. If it is there anyway, what is the problem?

Deputy O'Callaghan made the point that a judge in making his or her decision is likely to have expressed those reasons verbally in court. In that case the evidence is on a digital recording system and all the judge has to do if the person requests it in writing is to go and get an extract of that printed out and make sure they have it. In my personal experience on behalf of citizens, I have found that to get a digital audio recording record from our courts is nigh on impossible in many instances. I think people will not get that information in that circumstance. If it is there as the Deputy and the Tánaiste say it is, what is the problem? Let the judge access it because, God knows, every time I have tried to get it for people I have not been able to do it and I know many others have not either.

Nothing in my amendment states that the decision is delayed by the request in writing. The judge is being required to explain the decision in writing, which implicitly means the decision has been made and would be implemented. It does not alter the decision being implemented. The bail applicant is not being held in limbo with nowhere to go. After the decision is made, they have access to it in writing if they or their legal representatives want to challenge it or whatever. Those issues do not apply either. I do not accept the reservations outlined by the Deputy and the Tánaiste, and I will be pressing the amendment.

See this speech in context