As you said, this Bill has been passed by the Dáil and the amendments which I am introducing today arise directly from the Dáil debate and from the previous Seanad debate. Amendment No. 1 will oblige the nominated officer in the Department of Justice — the person to whom the application is made in the first instance for an interception — to maintain a record of any oral authorisation given. While I do not accept that as the Bill originally stood there was any scope for abuse, nevertheless, the view was expressed during the Dáil debate that when the High Court judge who is entrusted to review the legislation is viewing various interceptions he might not find a record of any oral authorisation. I do not think there is scope for abuse in the Bill as originally drafted. Nevertheless, this amendment reinforces that assurance.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 can be explained together. Under the Bill as originally drafted the request for authorisation to the nominated officer of the Department of Justice had to be made, in the case of the Garda Síochána, by the Garda Commissioner, and, in the case of the Defence Forces, for military intelligence purposes, by an officer of the Defence Forces not below the rank of colonel. For the sake of uniformity it was decided to accept the Opposition amendment in the Dáil — changed slightly — to the effect that in the case of an application for an authorisation from the Defence Forces the application must issue from the Chief of Staff. I have used the terminology "Chief of Staff" rather than "Chief of Staff of the Permanent Defence Forces" because it is in line with the definition of Chief of Staff in the Defence Act of 1954.
I accepted amendment No. 4 on Committee Stage in the Dáil. The designated judge, the High Court judge who will review the legislation, was obliged under the legislation as originally drafted to report to the Taoiseach at least once every two years. The two year period was the maximum time that could elapse between each report. Despite this obligation to report at two yearly intervals there is provision in the relevant section for the designated judge to report, from time to time between the main reports, to the Minister for Justice and to the Taoiseach on any matter that may concern him. In view of the fact that there was no guarantee that two years would not elapse between each main report, I decided to reduce the period from two years to one year.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 9 are technical amendments which arise from the change in the name of the Department as a result of the formation of the new Government and the creation of the Department of Tourism, Energy and Communications.
Amendment No. 7 is consequential on amendment No. 8 which arises from a point made by Deputy Gallagher of the Labour Party on Committee Stage in the Dáil. It concerns the release of metering information: the number of calls made, how long each call lasted, how many units were used and so on.
The Bill as originally drafted sought to ensure that if the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces sought this information from Telecom, they would have to do so in accordance with the provisions of the section. To strengthen that provision I accepted a recommendation from Deputy Gallagher and included the requirement that if such a request is made in the case of the Garda Síochána, the garda who requests the information from Telecom must produce an authorisation signed by a Garda officer not below the rank of chief superintendent. In the case of military intelligence such a request to Telecom must be authorised and signed by an army officer not below the rank of colonel. That will not only strengthen the legislation but will also reassure the public that information about their telephone bills is not being released at the request of just anybody.
The amendments are the product of the cumulative wisdom of the Dáil and the Seanad and will improve the Bill. They will provide for more transparency, which is a fashionable word at present, and I commend them to the House.
