Feargal Quinn (Independent)

In business circles one is told about phrases one should never believe. One is: "I will still love you in the morning, darling." The others are: "The cheque is in the post", "I am from head office and I am here to help you" and "The computer system is secure". I do not believe that there is such a thing as a secure computer system that cannot be hacked. Such systems have been hacked.

I accept the Minister's explanation that I should have taken last night's comments into account, as well as other Bills which refer to software. However, the mere fact that interference with software is included is recognition that it could happen. What happens if somebody interferes with the software in a planned and premeditated manner? They might decide, months or even years ahead of an election, to do it. Senator McCarthy mentioned motivation. We do not know the motivation.

Look at the anarchists who turned up on websites in the weeks before May Day. There are people who, simply for the sake of anarchy, would love to wreck a system. Under this Bill, if somebody goes to all the trouble of wrecking the system for whatever motivation and has the expertise to do it, he or she will be fined €3,500 or sentenced to 12 months in jail. This is saying, in effect: "You are very bold and naughty and this is what we will do."

I was moderate in the amendment. The Bill only refers to summary conviction with penalties of a €3,500 fine or 12 months in jail or both. That type of fine is acceptable for somebody who impersonates a voter. However, somebody who premeditatedly decides to interrupt the election, probably an anarchist, can decide to do it for the fun of it because they are the only penalties that can be applied. I would have preferred a fine of €1.5 million. However, I decided to be moderate and insert the figure of €15,000. I believed it would be easier to argue the case and easier to accept. I am concerned about people such as those May Day anarchists who said they would wreck the accession party in Dublin for no purpose other than to get publicity for damaging it. Somebody could well do this in the knowledge that the highest fine is €3,500.

I am delighted the Minister has recognised that we have not taken it into account. He has no great issue with the point I have made and has promised to come back with an assurance. However, the purpose of bringing legislation through these Houses is to correct and improve it so that we can stand over it and release it as good legislation. I do not like allowing this through while recognising it is faulty and saying we will come back some other time because there is no urgency at present. If we allow the Bill to be passed and enacted in a manner that leaves such a flaw, we will be at fault. While I accept the Minister of State's assurance, I am unhappy about accepting an assurance that recognises the Bill needs improvement but that will not be done now, rather at some later point. I am unhappy about accepting the Minister's view in this case.

Amendment put.