Mr. Dan Kelleher:

I will step forward for the first one. There were two planks to the Deputy’s questions to me. As I understand it, the first aspect concerned whether there is a modification of the legal definition of "a serious offence” in the 2011 Act. As will be recalled, we are not replacing this Act, but doing running repairs to it and adding elements where we think it necessary. No change is proposed to the legal definition of "a serious crime" in this proposed draft amending Bill.

Regarding the second aspect concerning the Deputy’s query about the grade of Garda officer who can seek disclosure in the context of the new section 6(1)(a), which I think the Deputy mentioned, that refers to " A member ... not below the rank of Inspector", this is a policy drafting decision we have made. We have put in the phrase “not below the rank of Inspector”, and that is a floor and not a ceiling. It will be a matter for the Garda authorities to determine how they wish to pitch that operationally. When I was dealing with and engaging on this question the other day, I also mentioned that part of the thinking behind it - and it is not in this provision, which deals with subscriber data, but it is there for the other category of data, which is traffic and location data - was that it is not the inspector making the decision to access traffic and location data. He or she is authorised to ask the court to permit access to the traffic and location data. This is what drove the decision to put in the phrase “not below the rank of Inspector”. As a result, the Garda will have a degree of operational discretion in how it deploys this power in respect of its grades of staff.