Alex White (Labour)

I wish to respond to a couple of the points the Minister made. I think I understand the Minister's position a little better now. On more than one occasion in his last contribution he emphasised the importance of sending out a strong signal. He repeated that several times and he said something akin to that in the other House as well. Having looked at this legislation and having heard the Minister's speech on Second Stage, most of the arguments in favour of it have tended to concentrate on what the Minister believes is the necessity for this legislation and on the tangible benefit it would bring to the prosecution of such offences and securing convictions where appropriate. I would be much more comforted if the Minister were talking about ensuring the law was changed in a manner that was necessary and that he had evidence of definite levels of intimidation of witnesses and juries. He keeps talking about empirical evidence. I said earlier, and I say again, that we need more of a glimpse of such evidence.

The Minister referred to what the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, said in the Dáil and to the Keane trial in Limerick, which has been mentioned a couple of times. He also referred to comments made by Deputy O'Donnell in the Dáil. Is there anything else? I do not say this in a smart way; I am asking the question genuinely. If the Minister is saying to the House that in the course of his deliberations in Government there was empirical evidence, above and beyond the anecdotes to which he referred from the Minister for Defence-----