Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I would like the Minister of State to clarify a number of matters as regards the new section 16A and subsection (2), which states:

Evidence that is admissible by virtue of subsection (1) shall not be admitted if the court is of the opinion that in the interests of justice it ought not to be admitted.

What is the reason for the amendment in the first place, since the courts have decided it was not in the interests of justice that various proofs be not admitted? Will that not be decided in any event because that provision is included? I wonder whether the legislation is trying to be clever, but perhaps it is not. It might not ultimately address the problem it purports to deal with. That is something that occurred to me as I was reading the amendment.

As regards the section dealing with the corrupt enrichment order, I do not have any problem with that, as such, but am concerned, nonetheless, if it relates to an issue such as planning. Where this happens, the damage will still have been done to a community. We are currently hearing a good deal about what happened in previous development planning matters, and whether the correct decisions were made and the reasons behind them. Once land is built on and a particular community is developed, in the building sense, the effects are there and the damage is done. Even though the Exchequer gets its money, will a particular community ever get any redress as regards the problems it has experienced as a result or will it see the perpetrators brought to justice in terms of having to serve jail sentences? Will this mean that some of these people will get away with it, even though they pay money over to the Exchequer?