Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

I am pleased Deputy Sherlock and the Labour Party support the rationale and the fundamental basis of the legislation. However, it is a great leap to depart from the rationale behind the legislation to challenge the time limits for the two substantive reasons proposed. The first such reason is that the limits would put an undue burden on business and the second is that Ireland would lose a comparative advantage. I regret to say that in the case of both of these grounds no reasons have been given in respect of why the limits would interfere or represent an undue burden on business. No reasons have been given or reports cited. No evidence has been brought forward to suggest that Ireland would lose some form of comparative advantage. I suggest that once the principle is conceded, which I welcome, the time limits, whether six, 12 or 24 months, do not in any material way interfere with the burden on business. In other words, if one imposes an obligation on service providers to provide this information, whether one requests that they retain such information for six, 12 or 24 months in no ways affects their ability to compete. It would not place an undue burden on business. I cannot see the connection between supporting the broad thrust and principle of the Bill and opposing it on the basis that it imposes an undue burden on business.

A point was made that the availability of information to the Garda some 23 months after a crime was committed would be helpful in respect of solving a crime. To my knowledge in respect of criminal investigations, the availability of information for in excess of 12 months has been invaluable to the Garda in helping to solve and to bring forward successful prosecutions. To reduce the time limits set out in the legislation would impede the Garda's ability to investigate a crime and bring forward prosecutions. That is the reality. To suggest otherwise amounts to trying to have one's cake and eat it.

The purpose of the substantive amendments is to reduce the periods for which the telephony operators and Internet service providers will be obliged to hold data. The proposed amendments have already been debated in detail on Committee Stage. From the Government's perspective, the position outlined at that stage in respect of its inability to accept them has not changed. To put it bluntly, accepting these amendments would seriously hamper the law enforcement authorities in their efforts to gather the quality of evidence that could make a significant contribution towards bringing serious criminals to justice, including terrorists. The Labour Party maintains it supports the principle and concept of data retention. Once that principle in conceded, one must rely on the expert and professional advice and recommendations from the Garda Síochána to the effect that the time limits set out would assist them in solving crime.

I refer to the second amendment. The preparation of the Bill involved extensive consultations between officials from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the service providers, their representative associations and the Garda Síochána. During these consultations, the issues of retention periods, the nature of the information to be retained and the State's position on costs were discussed and clearly set out to all parties. I acknowledge that in the context of non-reimbursement of costs not everyone is satisfied with the retention periods, but all concerned accepted the importance of data as an essential weapon in fighting serious crime and agreed to co-operate fully to ensure the success of the legislation.

I also acknowledge that our retention period for telephony data is higher than the average for other member states. Member states of different traditions and practices may take differing views concerning the retention of data and the directive grants member states the discretion of selecting the retention periods.

See this speech in context