Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

"(5) A report under this section shall contain details of the numbers of prosecutions actually commenced as a result of investigations to which requests related, and a detailed justification for any significant excess of numbers of requests over numbers of prosecutions actually commenced.".

This is another strengthening provision and it seeks to ensure that the law will not be flouted in any way. It speaks to the theme of amendment No. 5.

Bearing in mind the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, the current reporting format is inadequate, even if there is judicial oversight. If one examines some of the reports and documents arising from the oversight procedure, one will see they contain a single paragraph stating records regarding the legislation have been examined by a judge. That is all they state. We do not want similar circumstances obtaining regarding the legislation under discussion.

We would like to have included a provision seeking to examine the nature of the disclosure requests. If a request is made and leads to a criminal offence or prosecution, there would be some justification for the provision. However, if there were a large number of disclosure requests made but no correlation between those requests and subsequent prosecutions, it would provoke questions. There is always a need for some form of qualitative analysis to ensure legislation is working properly and fit for purpose. That is why the Labour Party is saying a detailed report should be made.

Oireachtas Library and Research Service documentation states an individual can only find out if data relating to him or her has been accessed on foot of a disclosure request by first making a request on the basis that he or she believes the data have been accessed. That is a fairly serious provision. The reporting procedure could redress such a disparity in the Bill. If one does not know that a disclosure request has been made about one, one has no way to access the referee or other such designated person. Perhaps the Minister has a view on that. If my understanding of the provision is wrong, I will openly acknowledge it but the amendment will ensure that the legislation is not used for nefarious purposes, that it is fit for purpose and that it is used in a manner to ensure that somebody cannot trawl widely for a disclosure request and do so for purposes other than expediting justice.

See this speech in context