Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

-----and there is a question of how they are kept and made available. The Internet companies are proactive in terms of safety. The vast majority of them now have safety officers, and they are conscious of this issue. They are working on it within their companies and are working with governments. At the recent meeting of the justice and home affairs Ministers, one of the agreements reached, for example, which might seem far away from what we are discussing tonight, was about the online radicalisation that is being used by ISIS in terms of recruitment of terrorists. One of the recent initiatives is to have a high-level EU forum, which is being put together by the Commission, to link with the Internet service providers at a high strategic level to discuss these issues and to achieve, as Senator Higgins pointed out, uniformity in the responses from providers to the kind of issues that we are discussing here this evening. Hotline.ieis another group that does valuable work.

I will move on to what the Law Reform Commission is examining in this area at present. The Law Reform Commission is carrying out a project on cyber crime affecting personal safely, privacy and reputation, including cyberbullying, as part of its fourth programme of law reform. A paper was published in 2014 that sought the views of interested parties on whether the current legislation - for example, the harassment offence in section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 - should be amended; whether there should be an offence that involves exactly what we are discussing tonight - namely, a single serious interference, through cyber technology, with another person's privacy; on whether current law on hate crime adequately addresses activity that uses cyber technology; on whether current penalties for offences such as cyber harassment and related behaviour are adequate; and on the adequacy of civil law remedies. The Law Reform Commission also held a seminar last year. It is now bringing together its recommendations, and we expect to have those this year. That will be a important contribution to how legislation needs to be developed. In fact, there are probably Bills that are needed.

It is clear, when I look at the Bill before us this evening, that much thought and deliberation has been given to creating offences which reflect the reality of some of the behaviour that can be used against others via technology.It shows a clear appreciation of the serious issues which can arise, such as encouraging others to harm or kill themselves, which is a despicable crime, and sharing an electronic communication which includes explicit content of another person.

Section 3 provides for an offence of harmful electronic communication, which is not dependent on direct communication with the victim. Indirect communication is an issue the LRC has identified and which will have to be considered as part of any solution to the problem. Its inclusion in the Bill is very relevant. The offence depends on intentionally or recklessly causing alarm, distress or harm to another. Technical questions would arise regarding some of the formulations and further work needs to be done on some of the particular points made by Senator Higgins.

The concept of persistence is very interesting because we know precisely what it means. Section 5 goes beyond the normal approach of applying standard criminal penalties of fines or imprisonment to provide for the making of ancillary orders, which can include matters such as a requirement that a person remove or delete specific electronic communications, even if he or she has not been convicted of one of the offences.

The Bill raises issues such as the balance between the right to information, an open society and privacy. This issue arises constantly in the area of criminal justice. The European Parliament has concerns about sharing passenger notification records, which are essential in terms of interrupting terrorist and illegal activity, even though there are agreements with the US and other countries to share such information. I make that point to show that the approach is far from unanimous.

I fully appreciate and understand that the purpose of this Bill is to protect individuals from harmful and malicious communications and to provide such individuals with a means of redress. I also understand why it is considered important to provide for legislation of this type, notwithstanding some points that need a different formulation and further development. I will not oppose the question.

We are all aware of the excellent work carried out by the LRC and how its consultation informs our legislation in both Houses. It is always extremely useful in terms of the formulation of legislation. I would like to assure Senators that the issues dealt with in the Bill will be considered further, particularly in the context of the recommendations of the LRC. As I did in a discussion with Senator Quinn when I brought his Bill, with his agreement, to the LRC so it would inform its work, I am happy to draw its attention to the content of the Bill and the debate, even though it has gone beyond its consultation period.

I again thank Senator Higgins for highlighting the issue and contributing to the development of legislation in this important area. It is a very important issue and a relatively new threat. We as legislators have to be very conscious of keeping legislation up to date in a number of areas of criminal justice in order to deal with the challenges.