Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

With respect to the Minister of State, there is a blurring of lines in that what he has described is not what the amendment is putting forward. It is very clear in the amendment that it is a question of the outcome rather than the reasons for the assessment, about which we have just had a debate. It is simply a matter of whether the person needs protection. The decision is made by a separate body, separate from the court. An Garda Síochána and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission identify that there are specific protection needs and examine whatever evidence or sensitive information might be relevant, as the Minister of State suggested. They come with an outcome based on the procedure followed in the case, not evidence. They are not stating it is evidence in the case. Nobody is suggesting the assessment would be presented as evidence in the case. They would simply be saying it was relevant information in how the court was processing the case where there was a need for protection. That is a very clear and separate process. Anybody going into something like this may have other needs such as a need for translation services. It is a matter of the processing of the case and the assessment would not be offered as evidence. I am not a lawyer - there are esteemed lawyers in the House - but I do not understand why this would require disclosure of the process used in the assessment of the outcome. It is simply a safety consideration made by a separate body and the information is offered to the court. It does not involve sensitive information on either an accused or the defence and the information would not be presented as evidence. Considering that the information is procedural, there may have been confusion on the Minister of State's part about what he believed was actually being suggested. To my mind, it seems to be very clear. I do not see the confusion the Minister of State suggested.