Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 10.
Chairman
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, subsection (2), to delete lines 36 to 45 and substitute the following:
"(2) Where a bureau officer who is an officer of the Revenue Commissioners or an officer of the Minister for Social Welfare may, apart from this section, be required under the Revenue Acts or the Social Welfare Acts, as the case may be, for the purposes of exercising or performing his or her powers or duties under those Acts, to produce or show any written authority or warrant of appointment under those Acts or otherwise to identify himself or herself, the bureau officer shall—
(a) not be required to produce or show any such authority or warrant of appointment or to so identify himself or herself, for the purposes of exercising or performing his or her powers or duties under those Acts, and".
The amendment in question is one which was subject to discussion before the committee went into full session. It is clear what the intent of this amendment is. The gardaí are in the public domain; they are identifiable by virtue of their number and that is part of their terms of employment. We are protecting the right of citizens to ensure that people who are carrying out this work are properly accredited and at the same time providing for the anonymity of revenue or social welfare officials. In effect the identification procedure is transferred to the garda, who will offer identity to safeguard citizen's rights and at the same time clearly indicate the garda is acting in full co-operation with the anonymous official.
The purpose of this is to stop somebody having to give their name and address to a person. Is it not possible to provide warrant cards with their photograph so that the person can be identified, apart from a garda say so, as from the bureau? A person should be entitled to see some authorisation that the person is what the garda claims he is. I do not see why a photograph cannot be produced with a warrant identifying the bearer. It is undesirable that a garda can introduce a total stranger and say that his word has to be taken and no questions can be asked about the person.
It is a reasonable suggestion and we will look at it. We will come back on Report Stage. I am not so sure that it is necessary to write it into legislation. From an administrative point of view it does not seem to pose any problems, but let us consider it. It is a constructive suggestion and it does not undermine anonymity.
Unless they are wearing balaclavas.
The people they will be interviewing might be wearing balaclavas.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 5a:
In page 10, before section 11, to insert the following new section:
"11.—(1) A person who publishes or causes to be published—
(a) the fact that an individual—
(i) being an officer of the Revenue Commissioners or an officer of the Minister for Social Welfare, is a bureau officer, or
(ii) is a member of the staff of the Bureau,
(b) the fact that an individual is a member of the family of—
(i) a bureau officer, or
(ii) a member of the staff of the Bureau,
or
(c) the address of any place as being the address where any—
(i) bureau officer,
(ii) member of the staff of the Bureau, or
(iii) member of the family of any bureau officer or member of the staff of the Bureau,
resides,
shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £50,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, or to both.
(3) In this section references to bureau officer or member of the staff of the Bureau do not include references to the Chief Bureau Officer, the Acting Chief Bureau Officer or the bureau legal officer.".
This amendment introduces a new section to further underpin the provisions of the Bill which relate to the anonymity of bureau officers and staff of the bureau. The section makes it an offence to publish or cause to be published the identity of a non-Garda bureau officer or a member of staff of the bureau as a bureau officer or member of staff of the bureau, the fact that an individual is a family member of a bureau officer or staff member of the bureau or, finally, the address of a bureau officer or a staff member of the bureau. The prohibition on publication does not apply in the case of the chief bureau officer, the acting chief bureau officer or the bureau legal officer. The identity of these people is already known and is in the public domain.
We were briefed on this matter before the Minister arrived and I agree with the purpose of the section. Many of the provisions of the Bill are designed to ensure that the anonymity of non-Garda members of the bureau is protected. I do not object to that general principle. From the information given during the briefing session, I understand that publication means publication in a newspaper or magazine or on radio or television. It also refers to situations where an individual might be overheard shouting that Miss X or Mr. Y is a member of the bureau which would also constitute an offence. I cannot infer this from the section, unless the term "publishes" refers to this situation which would seem to be a broad interpretation of the word "publication".
The Deputy has correctly interpreted the provision. It will be an offence to publish, cause to be published or cause to be made known.
That is not in the section. I could understand the provision if it referred to information that was to be published or where publishing was implied.
I am informed that the legal interpretation of "to publish" is inclusive of the verb "to make known".
I am concerned about the term "cause to be published". At the briefing session we inquired what would be the situation if, under privilege of this committee or the Dáil, a Member referred to a member of the bureau and their name was consequently published on the record of the House, etc.? Where does the privilege of the committee or the Dáil enter such a case?
Chairman
It is absolute.
How can that be the case when, as in the example to which I referred, a Member may cause the name of a member of the bureau to be published?
Chairman
There is an overriding principle of parliamentary privilege.
My question was directed at the Minister but I thank the Chairman for his reply.
Chairman
That put me in my place.
Criminal offences are created later in the Bill. Will this provision apply to reports of trials for criminal offences? If I were accused of intimidating a bureau official, will the identity of the victim — as is the case with the rape Act — remain confidential thereafter?
Yes.
Will the Minister extend this provision in certain circumstances to provide that somebody "was" rather than "is" a member of the bureau? The section refers to a person who "is a member of the bureau", but much damage could be done if they resigned and their identity was published in the Phoenix.
The Deputy's first interpretation is correct. It would be a similar practice in court proceedings where the identity of a rape victim would not be reported. The second observation seems to have some merit and we will consider it before Report Stage. A person who had recently been a member of the bureau, had been engaged in a fairly serious operation and would, by definition, be under threat, would still be entitled to that protection. If the law is not robust enough in its present form, we will take the opportunity to rectify the situation.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.