Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I am in favour of the principle of mutual assistance between countries, particularly EU member states, to solve crime. I wish to raise with the Minister a number of points regarding certain sections. He might clarify, if he can, the position and that will enable me to table amendments on Committee Stage, if necessary. These questions came to mind during the debate and they may be considered out of context but they are points I noticed relating to sections 25 and 26, which provide that material can be intercepted from another country before consent to do so is obtained from the other state. Such consent may not be given retrospectively, although it can be given. In that context, it allows the other state to require that we will not use the material intercepted. Why not simply provide that such consent must be given in the first instance? If consent is required, surely it should be applied for before the act of intercepting the material is carried out.

It also provides under sections 25(4)(b)(i) and (ii) that even before consent is granted the material may be intercepted and used. The material could have been used even if that state eventually refuses consent.

Are sections 25(1) and (2) numbered correctly? It is not clear from them whether the person has to be in the other territory. In respect of section 26 the Minister can refuse another state which does something similar on various grounds, including that the offence in question is politically motivated. This raises the question of the provision that can be used before consent is given. The motive for doing so may be political. I would appreciate any clarification the Minister can provide on these issues in his reply.

Section 26(5) provides that the Minister can decide the material already intercepted may not be used and can make an order in that regard. What if the material has already been used under the previous provision I mentioned? Could the provision be subject to legal challenge? I hope the Minister received the advice of the Attorney General on that point.

Section 27(d) provides that an authorised undertaking in this State "can facilitate interception of the messages by accessing interception equipment in a member state". This obliges a company here to do something in another state. Could that be challenged legally here by somebody invoking constitutional or other rights? What happens if the company does not receive the necessary co-operation from the other side or the other company has a problem with this, such as a belief that it is inappropriate to allow that equipment be used for that purpose or that there is a political offence involved? The section envisages two separate companies but given the nature of corporations, it could involve the same company or its subsidiary. Is it possible that the section could be open to abuse in that regard?

Unlike the other sections which contain protections to provide for the Minister's consent or notices of how something should be implemented, or a procedure being determined in court, there is no such provision in sections 27 and 28.

On a technical point, I note under section 28(6)(a) a fine is specified whereas no amount is given in (b). Does that need to be addressed?

While I have no problem with the Bill in general, it is important that people's rights are protected. Our Constitution provides for fair procedures in our legal system. Will the Minister clarify the type of material that can be intercepted and what he means by "telecommunications material"? Does that involve the content of phone calls, e-mails and so on?

Finally, I am not sure whether the Cathaoirleach will allow me to proceed with my next question but the Leader says that if a Minister is in the House we should ask any questions that are on our minds.

The Minister will be here for a long time.