Mr. Ronan Lupton:

I thank the Chairman and I appreciate the invitation to address the committee this morning. My opening statement was submitted to the committee, which basically outlines my background. I am a senior counsel practising at the Law Library in Dublin. I also have an extensive career and knowledge behind me relating to the telecoms industry, covering 24 years at this stage. I have been involved in various State bodies and operating groups through the years. I was very much involved with a memorandum of understanding between the State agencies, An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces and Revenue in 2011 to try to make the current legislation work from a practical standpoint. I need to correct my representation: I chair a trade association, the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators, ALTO. I am here with two hats on today.

I have put two submissions in writing to the committee. The first was an independent submission really dealing with legal issues arising, which is a 13-page submission. The second submission is a telco-specific submission. The first submission is a broad submission that deals with strategic issues arising from the general scheme of the Bill. Those strategic issues can be summarised in one sentence. The scheme gives rise to very costly and burdensome obligations on the telecoms industry. That is not to belittle the job of law enforcement and what this data retention amendment is designed to do. It is very serious in relation to preservation of life and State security. The third issue is what was challenged before the European Court of Justice, which was the investigation of offences. In my submission I made observations on those. The committee has seen them and I am happy to take questions on those particular issues

There are two other strands on the general observations. The first relates to the issue of the Murray report and the very serious report that was put out in respect of the preservation of journalists' sources and the integrity of freedom of expression in Ireland. That report must be considered in the context of this general scheme. I am aware that other people who will give evidence today are dealing with that. I have given the committee fairly extensive comments on it. There was also a case that came to the Court of Appeal called Corcoran, wherein a warrant was issued relating to a journalist's mobile phone. There was no latitude for an inter-partes, or two-way hearing, in respect of that issue. Again, this is similar to the preservation of the right to freedom of expression and how that should operate in any future legislation that comes forward.

I conclude in my submission by dealing with the concerns around the administration of justice versus administrative tasks that judges may or may not do and the fact of supervision. I also talk about how the industry is likely to be subject to handling criminal offences very quickly if this legislation is passed at breakneck speed, which is what the proposal is. Yet, we have not had a chance as industry to build the developments, which are very serious, into the systems and technologies.

I also submitted a telco-related observation with seven different strands to it. I believe my time is coming up now so I will stop at that but I am happy to share my submissions with anyone, either in the audience or on the committee. I will now hand over to the next witness if that is appropriate.