Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

This is an amendment which the Government thought, on an initial reading, it could accept or table an agreed amendment which would make the same point as Deputy Sherlock seeks to make. Having given the matter serious and detailed consideration, the Government has decided that not only would it not improve the Bill but it could, unfortunately, give rise to unintended consequences, which I would like to set out. Where a complaints referee concludes that a provision under section 6 has been contravened, the referee may direct the relevant law enforcement authority to destroy the data in question and any copies of it and make a recommendation for the payment of compensation to the applicant. The amendment seeks to qualify both responsibilities of the referee by obliging him or her to have due regard to the rights of any person whose bodily integrity or property was sought to be vindicated in the criminal investigation concerned.

I have some doubts as to whether the question of the payment of compensation should be so qualified, as amendment No. 7 seeks to do. However, destroying data which may be needed at some future time to vindicate the rights of a victim is an entirely different matter. The use of the word "may" in section 10(5) gives the referee discretion about whether to order the destruction of the data and-or the payment of compensation. It is a permissive provision. It would be unnecessary to specify the criteria which the referee has to take into account as he or she already has the discretion to consider whatever relevant factors he or she feels are necessary. To highlight one area in the Bill above all others on which the referee has to use his or her discretion could result in the discretion being used in all cases. The amendment would also depart from the regime established in the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 and the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005. It would be undesirable to give the referee different statutory responsibilities for what are, ultimately, the same duties.

For those reasons, after an initial favourable consideration, the Government is not disposed towards accepting this amendment.

See this speech in context