Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 82

In page 37, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following new subsection:

"(3) Information shall not be deemed to be of harmful effect if it can be shown that its disclosure was inadvertent or procured through fraud or deceit.".

This section is viewed in black and white terms and seems to allow very little scope for flexibility. Let us take the example where a garda receives a telephone call purporting to be from his or her chief superintendent or superior officer and he or she discloses information to that person, who turns out to be a journalist. Should this innocent garda be condemned under the provisions of this section? That appears to be the effect of section 55(3). It gives rise to concern. I would like to hear the Minister's comment on it.

In tabling amendment No. 83, I proposed it to offset the absolutist nature of the section, particularly section 55(2) which sets out a very broad definition of the term "harmful effect". The Minister should acknowledge that the Garda Síochána uses the media to its advantage and for its assistance in investigating crimes, particularly serious crimes. When members of the Garda Síochána contact the media to highlight a particular case, they know that the profile of the case will be raised, which inevitably leads to more information from the public. In this regard the provisions of subsection (2) go overboard. Will the Minister address these points?