Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 14, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following:

"(4) Reports under subsection(3)(b) shall include the following:

(i) the steps taken to keep the operation of the Act under review;

(ii) the number of individual files reviewed;

(iii) the volume of surveillance carried out;

(iv) whether mistakes were made in the carrying out of surveillance (such as the targeting of the wrong individual), the number and nature of these mistakes;

(v) the findings of an evaluation test measuring compliance with European Convention on Human Rights standards; and

(vi) any recommendations for legislative or practice changes that the designated judge considers necessary to safeguard against mistake and ensure full compliance in practice with ECHR standards.".

The changes proposed in amendments Nos. 41 to 45, inclusive, are based on a critique made of the oversight facility and are intended to try to ensure we have the best possible oversight. The Bill draws on the oversight model contained in the Interception of Postal Packages and Telecommunications Messages Act 1993, which I believe to be grossly inadequate. In a critique of that model in the context of an article on data retention, Mr. T. J. McIntyre, a lecturer in law at UCD, and chair of Digital Rights Ireland, stated:

This oversight mechanism has been almost entirely opaque from the outset. The annual reports of the designated judge since that position was created in 1993 have consisted every year of no more than a single line stating that the operation of the Act has been kept under review and its provisions are being complied with.

For example, there has been no discussion of what steps have been taken to keep the operation of the Act under review, whether individual files were reviewed, the volume of surveillance being carried out, whether mistakes were made in carrying out surveillance, such as the targeting of a wrong individual and, if so, what steps were taken to safeguard against such mistakes in future.

Amendment No. 42 seeks to ensure that one can complain to the complaints referee about more than the authorisations under section 7 on urgent cases involving the Garda that are only approvable under section 8. What if one wants to make a complaint about the conduct of the surveillance judicially approved under section 5 or varied thereafter?

Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 have been submitted on the back of the Irish Human Rights Commission's document presented to Deputies and seek to ensure that the report of the designated judge reveals more details. In this way, we would know whether the mechanisms were being overused. A proper facility must be provided in the House to afford us more details than have been suggested to date.

As I am unsure about the recommendation, I will revert on amendment No. 45.

See this speech in context