Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)

I echo the comments that were made previously relating to Garda Kevin Flatley and offer my condolences to his family. I can only imagine how difficult today and the past few days have been for them. I offer my condolences to all members of An Garda Síochána who served closely on the force with him.

I support the amendment tabled by my colleagues. I thank Senator Ruane for her and her office's work. I thank Senator Flynn for her work and contribution in this area. As a solicitor, I appreciate the contribution that has been made to the debate. I understand where Senator Ruane is coming from with the idea that information is being used to make a decision about somebody to which that individual does not have access. I appreciate the nuance of the point made. I very much take on board the point made by Senator McDowell that it is important in work that we do in this Chamber that we are not adding extra layers to a process that ultimately may not be regularly used. I echo the Minister's comments. It is important that he has an opportunity to hear directly from the Parole Board on how regularly this practice occurs and if it something that is used on a occasional basis or something that has not been exercised at all.

I am conscious that in this debate we must always have at the forefront of our minds the victims of these crimes. An individual must be serving a life sentence to be eligible for parole in the first instance. A life sentence is one where the individual concerned has been convicted of some of the most heinous, serious and grievous offences that anyone can be convicted of. It is important that in seeking to balance the rights of someone who is serving a life sentence to get access to information about them, we also respect that sensitive and confidential work could have been undertaken perhaps by members of An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces or the security forces and perhaps dealing with issues of national security or serious gang or organised criminal activity. It is about finding a balance between the rights of the individual to information about themselves while not compromising anybody who is involved in protecting other issues of the State. It is important that in six months, should this amendment pass, the Minister comes back to the House with a better and clearer understanding of the balance between those competing rights. I agree with the point made earlier about the consequences for a special advocate breaching the confidentiality clause, should this legislation pass. Every barrister has a client and in this situation we would have the novel environment where even the special advocate, who de facto is representing the interests of the individual serving the life sentence, is in reality prohibited from giving them the information they may be under the impression is making the difference in whether they have a successful application for parole. The juxtaposition of those two competing interests could lead to a situation such that a special advocate is placed in an impossible position where he or she has insight to that information but is prohibited from placing it before the individual.

Should the amendment pass, it is important that when the Minister is reviewing this legislation, the security of special advocates, should they come into being, and the need to protect them in the same way we protect similar informers, confidential people and members of the Judiciary, is taken into account.