Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I have already made clear my views on the repressive emergency legislation, the Offences against the State Act, and the European Arrest Warrant Act. We opposed this Bill on Second and Report Stages because it is repugnant to the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Unfortunately, the amendments before us do nothing to alter this view.

I particularly oppose the new section which the Minister has introduced concerning traffic data retention. This is not only because it infringes the right to privacy, has fundamental and significant human rights implications and the Human Rights Commission has not had an opportunity to give its opinion on this and other amendments, but also because it is another instance of the Government making an illegal practice legal retrospectively, similar to the Health (Amendment) (No.2) Bill. I oppose it because of the manner in which the Minister is inserting these sections into this legislation by stealth at a late stage, which is anti-democratic.

My office never received the amendments and on inquiry was initially told that they would be published only this morning. That was misinformation. They were not available electronically. They were not in the internal mail this morning and I was informed that they were not circulated at all. They had got stuck in the General Office whose staff did not seem to be aware they had them. I cannot speak for other Deputies but I had only two hours in which to peruse these proposals. Human error or not, this is not acceptable. The debate should at the very least have been postponed on that basis as well as on the basis of my other points.

The first legislative programme of this Government contained a promise to introduce a communications data retention Bill to oblige licensed operators to retain records of communications data for a specified period necessitated by the terms of the EU telecommunications directive. It is listed as No. 63 in the legislative programme published on 25 January last. When my colleague, Deputy Morgan, yesterday asked the Tánaiste about the status of that Bill and when it would be published, she replied it was already in the Seanad. While her reply was somewhat incoherent, I can only take it that there is no communications data retention Bill apart from these amendments.

The Minister, who knows these measures are controversial and, some would say, illegal, wants to limit democratic debate on them as much as possible. It is his standard practice to use amendments to introduce one Bill inside another. I asked him a question on the data retention Bill on 6 March 2003 because the impending legislation was a controversial matter and had been opposed by human rights advocates across Europe. The Minister replied that he intended to publish the Bill in 2003 but I have not seen it. I am not certain whether this series of amendments is in effect that Bill.

The Minister also said that the legislation would be subject to the normal rigours of passage through the Oireachtas, including Committee Stage scrutiny. The Minister misled the Dáil and possibly also the Seanad and the public in this regard. I do not accept his reason for introducing these amendments at this stage. The safeguards in which he places great faith are not adequate.

The Bill does not provide for any punishment for somebody who misuses this. There is compensation but no punishment. These sections should not form part of the Bill but should be resubmitted for proper public scrutiny.

A debate should be held, as originally promised, on a separate communications data retention Bill. If the Minister does not withdraw amendments Nos. 3 to 10, this debate is similar to many other debates in that this legislation is a farce, like other legislation brought forward by this Minister.

See this speech in context