Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 2, to delete "2 years" and substitute "1 year".

I am making the same arguments here as I did on Committee Stage. Looking at the legislation in the main, it is about the transposition of a directive which was completed in 2006. We have to look at the historical perspective and the fact that the directive was initiated as a result, in particular, of the Madrid bombings. It was a counter-terrorism response relating to that period. We are now in a situation where a number of years have past and we are moving towards the final transposition of that directive now. Our view is that some of the provisions in the Bill are excessive, particularly in relation to the length of time for which data must be retained.

The Minister of State's justification for the Government's position vis-À-vis the two-year retention period for telephony and the one-year retention period for Internet data is on the basis of security and counter-terrorism measures, as well as the detection of crime. We in the Labour Party understand that rationale and would not argue against it. In principle, we are not against the retention of data and believe that the directive must be transposed. However, we take issue with the manner in which it is being transposed and the length of time for which data must be retained, particularly in relation to ISP and telephone records, because we believe this will place an undue burden on business and that the costs could be prohibitive and reduce any future comparative advantage Ireland might gain through the Internet and telecommunications sectors.

I refer to the historical context of the transposition of a directive dating back to 2006 and any subsequent legislation enacted that has dealt with counter-terrorism or crime prevention measures more than adequately, including the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act and the recently passed Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act. The Labour Party is examining the permutations of the Government's position, especially vis-À-vis the cost implication. I submit that placing on Internet service providers, ISPs, and telephony companies an obligation to store data for two years would result in an undue cost burden and would not have an impact on crime prevention in real terms or in terms of detection. I refer to the Minister's submission on Committee Stage. He stated that the 12 month detention period for Internet data is very much in the mainstream and this is significant because the Internet is a relatively new technology. He further stated that it is accepted that the vast majority of disclosure requests which would arise as a result of the legislation relate to data less than three months old.

If the requests for data are, to use the words of the Minister on Committee Stage, for data less than three months old, then I submit that the Labour Party amendment, which seeks to substitute two years for one year and one year for six months, would be in line with his thinking in respect to the prosecution of a crime or any investigation pertinent to committing a crime. I further submit that if the legislation is passed and data is to be retained for two years hence, then on this day in two years time, that is, on 23 February or 24 February 2012, if someone were to be investigated for a crime then I suggest any telephone call made on today's date, the content of which is unknown, or if a person logged on to a website in the intervening period of one year hereafter, it would impact in no way on whether one could suitably detect that any such communication was pertinent to any crime committed. The approach of the Government in terms of transposing the directive is that of a sledge-hammer being used to crack a nut.

I reiterate that we are not against the principle of data storage. We agree the directive must be transposed but we maintain the time periods are excessive and, contrary to the Minister's statement on Committee State to the effect that the legislation is in line with the mainstream, we believe it is against the European mainstream and that other countries have transposed the directive on the basis of time periods more in line with the proposal contained in the Labour Party amendment.

See this speech in context