Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

Senator McCarthy's amendment would delete paragraph (f), which provides for e-mail or facsimile transmission of notices. It is difficult to accept the proposition that significant modern legislation, designed to place 1878 legislation — old 19th century legislation from the time of Queen Victoria — on a 21st century footing should intentionally exclude provision for the service of notices by the most modern means of communication available. The Bill has been drafted against the backdrop of an ongoing and comprehensive programme of regulatory reform. The intention of that programme is to make legislation generally more accessible and to facilitate the conduct of administrative affairs in the most efficient manner possible. It would be contrary to the spirit of that programme to prevent the service of notices under the Bill by the most modern and efficient means.

As pointed out by Senator Brady, the purpose of paragraph (f) is to facilitate the quickest and most convenient possible service of a notice. It enables it to be sent either by facsimile or e-mail. These are two of a number of options available to the authority issuing the notice. It is clear that if the person to whom the notice is addressed does not have facilities to receive it by a certain means — there are many who do not have facsimile or e-mail facilities, as I believe Senator McCarthy is contending — the issuing authority will have to opt for alternative means of delivery in the first instance. In addition, to avoid possible oversight or breakdown in electronic delivery, paragraph (f) also provides that where a notice is served by facsimile or e-mail, it must also be served by one of the more traditional ways provided for in the preceding paragraphs. This is intended as a fail-safe mechanism to ensure that notices are delivered in all circumstances.

The point of providing for the delivery of notices by electronic means is to facilitate speedy and efficient delivery. This could be advantageous to both sides and to all the stakeholders. Where a person requests that a notice be provided to him or her electronically, it would reflect badly on a modern modernised regulatory process if such a request could not be facilitated.

This provision is based in the first instance on similar provisions for the service of notices under section 56 of the Food Safety Authority Act of 1998. Similar provisions are also to be found in the Europol Act 1997, the Air Navigation and Transport Indemnities Act 2001 and the Extradition (European Union Conventions) Act 2001. An earlier amendment to section 6 provides the Minister with powers to make regulations on the provision of information or documentation in electronic format by any person for the purposes of the Act. Such regulations may provide for any requirements regarding the retention of records and related technical or procedural requirements. It is envisaged that they will enable the Act to be kept abreast of developments in the area of electronic communications, in this world of IT, while ensuring that all necessary controls and safeguards are brought to bear.

When I first examined Senator McCarthy's amendment, I believed it made sense and that everyone must be facilitated, bearing in mind that there are more who do not have facsimile or e-mail facilities than those who have. However, those with e-mail and facsimile facilities will also receive a hard copy and those who do not have such facilities will receive notice by the traditional means or, to put in another parlance, there will be a VVPAT.