Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I tried to follow what was being done in the Seanad in this case. I usually wait until that House has completed its deliberations on a Bill, which in this case did not happen until 10 February last. Deputies were given a short period of time to deliberate on and research this matter. I reiterate that the timeframe for this aspect of the legislation was short. The new provisions should have been introduced in a separate Bill. This House and the Seanad have been able to deal with all Stages of emergency legislation in a relatively short period of time, and that could and should have been done in this instance.

The Minister has admitted that this was intended to be a stand-alone Bill. He did not originally intend to insert parts of a Bill he planned on introducing at a later stage in the middle of this legislation. The new sections of the Bill have not been accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. According to a Government White Paper, Regulating Better, regulatory impact analysis is needed when measures which will have a major effect on people's lives are being introduced. Such analysis should be published at the same time as Bills, for example. The Minister has a habit of introducing substantial rafts of amendments to Bills. In such circumstances, an explanatory memorandum immediately becomes out of date and a regulatory impact analysis becomes worthless because it does not relate to the amended form of the Bill.

The way in which the Minister has introduced the new sections of the Bill is contrary to Regulating Better, which states: "we will require higher standards of evidence before regulating". Existing provisions allow for data to be retained for six months, or for a longer period under warrant. It is not correct to claim that we need to introduce these measures because the Data Protection Commissioner plans to interfere with a ministerial order for the retention of data. Such an order has been made for the past three years, since it was originally introduced by the former Minister, Senator O'Rourke.

The Minister said that consultation has taken place, but that claim is rebutted in an article in The Irish Times, which I was able to source in the little time available to me for research. The headline on the article in question, which was written by Karlin Lillington, is "Consultation over data Bill is a farce". She outlines why she thinks the consultation process was a farce. An article in another newspaper reiterates her argument. The process was a farce because this part of the legislation was not made available to Deputies until recent times. Perhaps the Minister is right when he says that events overtook us, but he cannot deny that there was no consultation on this aspect of the Bill, which is brand new. The sections of the legislation dealing with data retention should be rejected. We should revisit the issue in the fullness of time, in the context of the debate the Minister expects to take place when the European Union decides to interfere further in people's lives.

I mentioned earlier that the Bill does not provide for a punishment. I ask the Minister to elaborate on that. Perhaps penalties are provided for in the existing legislation, which we are specifically amending. I would like to ask about the designated judge, who will be given certain duties under section 65. Why does section 64 state that the president of the High Court will invite a judge to take up this role "from time to time"? Why is it not a permanent position, which is required to be filled on an ongoing basis, other than when the person in question is incapacitated or has retired? The president of the High Court should ensure that the position is filled on a continuous basis.

I note from certain reports that during the original consultation to which the Minister referred, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties raised some concerns about potential interference with people's right to privacy. Similar problems have been encountered by the Irish Human Rights Commission, which has been specifically tasked with examining legislation that has implications for human rights — in this case, the right to privacy. As I said, the Garda is allowed to apply by warrant to retain data for longer than the six-month period that is currently allowed, if the Minister wishes it to do so. We should reject Seanad amendment No. 3 as well as the eight related amendments until the Minister has proven that we need to extend the provisions. I do not think he has proven that case. We can return to this matter at a later stage when we can have proper consultation and debate on it.

See this speech in context