Dan Boyle (Green Party)

The essence of the march involving 5,000 people after the death of Mr. Roy Collins in Limerick was to express solidarity with the Collins family, particularly Roy's close family. In impassioned speeches given by Roy's father, Steve, and the then Mayor of Limerick, Mr. John Gilligan, it was clear many people were present to discover how circumstances could and should change through legislation. Specific reference was made to this Bill, which was being worked upon at the time. The House will be doing a good job in placing it on the Statute Book and giving a clear signal that things must be done differently.

In a democratic society, where the freedom of the individual is paramount, it is difficult to maintain the balance between the right to privacy and the need to carry out surveillance during the investigation of crime. However, we live in times in which certain individuals compromise the rights of society in general and communities in particular. This makes us consider changes of the law in this regard. However, as other Senators noted, a particular balance has been struck and it was informed by the drafting of the legislation and previous legislation during Private Members' time, as Senator Regan mentioned. Senator Bacik referred to the inadmissibility of evidence. If there is criticism of the Bill, it concerns how it can be refined. Senator Regan mentioned the inadvertent use of the Garda Commissioner in determining future applications of the legislation and Senator Quinn referred to a number of areas in respect of which we need to be careful.

We live in an age of ever-quickening technological advances. While intercepts can be secured from telephone calls on landlines and mobile telephone calls, the way we communicate with one another is becoming increasingly complicated. The Skype telephone system, whereby people can talk to each other over computers, exemplifies an obvious difficulty with the type of surveillance in question. It is clear that, even with the passage of laws of this nature, there will be technological advances that will require us to revisit the legislation very quickly to ensure we keep up with technology.

My fears do not concern the admissibility of evidence necessary to convict those who are undermining society. My fears, which I hope can be dealt with through the appropriate choice of powers from this Bill and the writing of orders by the Minister to allow the legislation to come into effect, concern the use of information subsequent to a conviction and not its use as evidence in trials. We have seen how information leaked during investigations might have a prurient value for the media or individuals who gain access to it. I seek safeguards in this regard. It is not so much that an individual who engaged in criminal activity or had criminal intent would be compromised on foot of statements made in the compilation of evidence but that innocent citizens might be compromised inadvertently by this information. That is the thin line we tread on these occasions. I support the Bill, however, and am pleased that the House seems to be speaking with one voice about its necessity and the importance of putting it on the Statute Book. While it probably does not cover all the angles, no Bill can do so. It is intended to keep a close eye on how this area of law develops and how we as legislators can make sure that it can be kept up to date so that public confidence can be gained and maintained in this important area.