Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

There is a disjoint. I understand that the Minister is addressing the court ruling, but we are also addressing what we believe to be good and best practice. I still have concerns in respect of this issue. I am especially concerned in the context of surveillance in the State, as was mentioned. There have previously been some very bad ideas floated in terms of what might be done in that regard. I note that the policy intent the Minister is describing and what is written down in the Bill are slightly different. I do not doubt the sincerity of the intent of the Minister but the Bill refers to suspicion, on reasonable grounds, of a person having committed an offence. Amendment No. 8 would insert the word "serious". That is not specified in the context of it being criminal. Maybe an offence means that it is criminal in that context.

The Minister stated that it is not retrospective but I do not see that safeguard in the Bill either. As I read the Bill, a superintendent who suspects that a person has committed an offence is able to access the data of that person. There is reference in a separate section to detecting or preventing future offences.There is a danger of this becoming a situation. As we said, a superintendent must make a case using reasonable grounds but does not actually have to make that case unless challenged. The only person that he or she makes a case to and, indeed, he or she is not even required to write down that case, is to the service provider whom he or she asks for information. Of course, the onus is on the service provider, and there is a natural inclination by the service provider, which is being requested by a superintendent who says that the Garda is doing so on reasonable grounds, will be to say, "Yes, you can access that data".

I understand the provision is better than what we had but what we had was really bad and a draconian interpretation of the laws. I recall that some of the provisions, as they were brought in, were queried by a former Minister, and perhaps the then Minister was our Seanad colleague, Senator Michael McDowell. Concerns remain even though the provision is better than what we had and I believe that the provision is just a little too wide in terms of usage.