Vol. 495 No. 4
15 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has to reform criminal law with a view to rendering illegal the use of advanced and sophisticated surveillance equipment. [20498/98]
In June 1998, the Law Reform Commission published a report on privacy, surveillance and the interception of communications. This report is being examined in my Department and any proposals for changes to the criminal law arising from that examination will be announced in the usual way in due course.
(Mayo): Will the Minister agree that privacy is a fundamental right in any democratic society and it must be protected? The Law Reform Commission report is quite detailed in terms of its determination that there is a huge intrusion on privacy, by virtue of the range of devices which enable persons to spy at long distances on the most intimate domestic situations as well as commercial activities. There is an urgent need for legislation. The right to privacy is enshrined in the Constitution as a principle but there is a huge gap between enforcement and practice. There is an urgent need to introduce legislation. Is the Minister aware that the heads of the Bill are contained in the Law Reform Commission report and therefore it is on a conveyor belt?
Would that life were so easy. While the heads of the Bill may well be contained in the Law Reform Commission report, it will require a great deal of detailed study by officials of my Department and by the parliamentary draftsman. There are legal provisions relating to surveillance. The Non Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997, provides statutory protection against harassment by another person, by virtue of persistent watching, pestering or communication. The common law offence of breach of the peace might provide limited protection against surveillance. The common law offence of eavesdropping is a form of common or public nuisance. The Data Protection Act, 1988, the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, and the broadcasting and telecommunications legislation are relevant. I do not pretend or try to convey the impression that the legislation referred to can be put forward as an answer to the need for protection from surveillance, which Deputy Higgins correctly identifies as being a problem. To illustrate that privacy of individuals receives some protection, in the final analysis new legislation will be required to deal with this problem. The difficulty I have in the Department is that several Bills are listed for drafting so that I cannot give a timescale as to when legislation, along the lines of the Law Reform Commission's report, will be forthcoming.
