Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I have tabled a number of amendments. The first in my name in this grouping is amendment No. 17, which seeks to insert three additional points which would be required for the record of approval, namely, the grounds on which the approval was granted, the less intrusive or other means considered and determined insufficient and the efforts made to secure an emergency judicial hearing.

It does not take away from the intent. It is to make sure that consideration of alternative measures was given before approval was granted. We recognise the need for the Garda to be able to, on occasion, issue its own authorisation for surveillance in exceptional, urgent cases, but it is a major power to grant and, as such, the primary legislation underpinning it must contain safeguards. The three additional safeguards would not overburden anybody in granting an authorisation and writing up the record. We want to make sure that the Garda Síochána does not get into the habit of issuing its own authorisations unnecessarily and that the issuing garda must go through a number of steps.

Mr. Justice Morris and others have looked at the other areas where gardaí have issuing powers of similar gravity, such as the power to extend detention and issue search warrants in urgent circumstances. He was critical in his report of the practice of senior gardaí in these matters, and noted that they seemed to operate as little more than a rubber-stamp whenever a request was submitted by investigating officers. As we are discussing interfering with some fundamental rights and the right to privacy, it important that senior gardaí actively consider the merits of the request and whether the surveillance is truly necessary and proportionate.

Amendment No. 18 proposes an additional safeguard and to insert, in page 9, line 17, after the word "hours", the phrase "he or she will then produce a written record of the variation and the reasons for same". It is a matter of seconds, but we would ensure that the garda in question has sat and thought about the determination before making it. The advantages of that would then stand up in court.

Regarding amendment No. 19, as it stands unless a complaint is made there is no independent oversight of this significant garda power. As the nature of covert surveillance is secretive, in many cases a person will not know to complain, even if his or her rights are being abused by an unlawful use of this power. For this reason, there should be some type of independent oversight of this power. We are creating oversight with regard to many other issues and in this instance we seek to ensure that the designated judge has an oversight power.

Amendment No. 20 deals with tracking devices. The Human Rights Commission believes tracking devices should not be singled out and treated differently from other forms of surveillance.

Amendment No. 21 refers to section 8. Section 8(1) refers to a period of four months whereas the rest of the Bill refers to a period of three months. The amendment seeks to standardise this because I do not see why there should be a difference in the timeframe. Even though this section refers to tracking devices, three months is a sufficient period and the permission can be renewed thereafter if necessary, although obviously with the safeguards.

On amendment No. 22, it is not clear why paragraphs (b) and (c) are required. I suggest we should insert paragraph (a) with (b) and (c). It is welcome that gardaí requesting permission to use a tracking device have reasonable grounds for believing the device is proportionate to its objectives and used for the duration that is reasonably required. However, she or he should also have grounds for believing that it is the least intrusive means available. The amendment is proposed as a matter of ruling out whether there are other alternatives.

Amendment No. 24, in my name also, is similar to the amendment I proposed to section 7. While I will not go back over the issue again, the amendment seeks to ensure that the powers are conditional on ensuring a proper record is kept.

Amendment No. 25 is self-explanatory and seeks to add an additional safeguard. Amendment No. 26 is similar to what I have already argued in regard to amendment No. 19. Amendment No. 27 again seeks to standardise the period of months from four to three.

See this speech in context