I will stick to the amendments we are debating. I thank Deputy McNamara for acknowledging that we have moved some distance towards trying to find a compromise on the worthwhile suggestions he made. We spent time trying to amend the legislation in order to go some distance towards his position. We do not feel we can guarantee that we can reach a vendor to consult with it but we will make the best effort we can. That is really what the legislation is trying to say. We know we can consult the mobile operators. We know…

I move amendment No. 26: In page 23, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(b) that the Minister considers it necessary to take the measures contained in the order to control risks to the security of electronic communications networks or electronic communications services which may affect national security, (c) where the Minister considers that consultation under section 27(1) would be contrary to the interests of national security, the reasons therefor,”.

Is Deputy McNamara saying there is some section of the Bill where the words "national security" are not actually directly used? Is that his question or does he have a proposed amendment on how I should word it?

Yes, I am going to move it.

I move amendment No. 30: In page 24, line 22, to delete “or public order”. I am accepting all proposed deletions of the words "or public order", specifically amendments Nos. 31 and 32 and 37 to 41, inclusive. I have brought forward an amendment of my own to specify on a high-risk vendor notice that the Minister considers it necessary to take the measures contained in the order to control risks to the security of electronic communications networks or electronic communication services which may affect national securi…

I move amendment No. 33: In page 24, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “(1) A high-risk vendor measure shall not be challenged, including as to its validity, other than by way of an appeal under this section. (2) For the avoidance of doubt, in respect of a measure under section 25 , no proceeding (including an application for judicial review) may be brought before the courts other than an appeal under this section.”.

I do not believe that the vendors would want us to publish its names. They might find that damaging to their reputation and they would prefer if this were handled without publication of the fact that we consider that a particular product and vendor constitutes a risk, if it puts in a particular section of the communications network. I do not believe that the vendors would want that to happen and I can see why it might be damaging to their reputations.

What exactly is the Deputy's question?

It is anticipated that any consultation around serving these notices would require sensitive consultation, with a process involving a measure with the sending of a notice to the providers, meaning that they will be informed as part of the Minister making a measure. Affected vendors will be informed, where appropriate. The Deputy is then asking that there be a limit of five days.

My apologies to the Deputy, but I will have to come back to him later with a reply to that question as I do not have the information he is requesting now.

I move amendment No. 36: In page 25, lines 36 to 38, to delete all words from and including “and—” in line 36, down to and including line 38, and in page 26 to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following: “, and remit the decision for reconsideration by the Minister subject to such directions as the Court considers appropriate.”.

I move amendment No. 37: In page 26, line 6, to delete “or public order”.

Are we discussing amendment No. 41?

I accept the proposed deletion of "or public order" and, on that basis, I am accepting amendments Nos. 37 to 41, inclusive.

For clarity purposes, I am accepting all the amendments that have "or public order" in the text, apart from amendments Nos. 31 and 32 because they have additional text after the words "or public order".

I move amendment No. 40: In page 26, lines 22 to 25, to delete all words from and including “party” in line 22, down to and including line 25 and substitute the following: “party, and (c) take relevant material into account in making its decision in relation to the appeal regardless of the extent to which, or ways in which, the relevant material is provided to the appellant in accordance with this section.”. The amendment corrects a textual error in the legislation, which ascribes a role to the Minister that should…

This amendment specifies that a different judge should hear this section of the process. I feel this is an interference in judicial independence. The courts can determine which judge hears which hearing. That is a question for the courts, rather than the Minister, to determine. There are alternative ways of dealing with the designation of vendors or specification of security measures. They could be done by writing the law in such a way that the Minister could simply issue the list on consultation with the security …

I just want to say that in respect of this amendment, Deputy McNamara used the word "accused". If an individual is accused of a crime in Ireland, he or she would like to see the evidence against him or her but nobody is being accused here. This is about the designation of a vendor's equipment as being high risk in a particular section of the Irish communications network. It is a designation. It does not refer to a natural individual. Nobody is being charged with a criminal offence. We are talking about a foreign co…

I move amendment No. 43: In page 27, to delete lines 13 and 14 and substitute the following: “30. If the High Court is satisfied, on an application by the Minister, that the hearing of an appeal of a high-risk vendor measure, or a variation in such measure, is likely to result in the disclosure of relevant material and that such disclosure would create a risk to the security of the State it shall exclude from the hearing of the appeal all persons except—”. Following concerns raised on Committee Stage about the hear…

I move amendment No. 45: In page 27, lines 31 and 32, to delete all words from and including “The” in line 31, down to and including line 32. Following some helpful discussion on the role of ComReg in the Committee Stage debate, I have introduced amendment No. 46 in order to allow ComReg to monitor a provider's compliance with high-risk vendor measures. ComReg may, if required, serve a direction on the provider seeking further information or requiring it to submit to a security audit. These directions are applicabl…